Activision has a great money making business plan that always works for them. Why would they change it because of a small bunch of slackers signed an easily forged online petition?
Thousands Sign StarCraft 2 Petition
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
It's interesting how whenever something bad comes out of Activision-Blizzard, it's never Blizzard's fault even though I do recall someone saying that Blizzard has a degree of autonomy from Activision and therefore this decision to not do LAN was entirely on them.
No company is perfect. Of course you'd think Blizzard would have a good reason for not including what was the biggest reason Starcraft gained its popularity in its sequel, but since that's still mostly rumors related to an X-Box Liveish revamp of Bnet, I can't really say for sure.
No company is perfect. Of course you'd think Blizzard would have a good reason for not including what was the biggest reason Starcraft gained its popularity in its sequel, but since that's still mostly rumors related to an X-Box Liveish revamp of Bnet, I can't really say for sure.
That's not really a clever way of putting it. Your ommiting a bunch of people who don't have cash, or are in different situations as you.Destal said:
When I was a student, I spent 4 months in Korea during the summer for... well im still not really sure why, probably something about the culture or something.
Anyway, while I was there, my grandparents had no internet, and no computer, no TV and no air conditioning. I was bored out of my mind, hot as fuck, and had NOTHING to do. However, after a week or two of that bullshit, the next door neighbor came by (apartment complexes in Korea are really packed) and invited me over to his place, because his friends were over, and he knew that my grandparents had no boredom relief products. He let me use his old PC that was sitting around, and we played 4 player LAN in his living room for about 3-4 hours having a fuckload of fun and not being bored out of our skulls. I got to know the guys, and every weekend the guys from the story above and below us would bring over their PC's, hook them up, and we would have a shitload of fun.
The point is, just because it may seem "easy" to get internet and play, many MANY people do not have this option. Take for example, troops in Iraq. Some may have internet, but I highly doubt they ALL do. Or, perhaps people who live where internet service is not provided (deep mountains, great plains, w.e). People like this can add up, and by excluding LAN you just got rid of 20 thousand potential happy people. LAN can be a big deal if you look at it well.
Actually I'll be buying the battle chest in a few years that'll come with Lan that was added a few patches inFlunk said:
.So you are kind of right =3.
Historically I've never had a beef with Blizzard.AceDiamond said:
So I tend to look at it like this.
If Party A rubs my balls and says I'm their world 100% of the time, then suddenly Party A teams up with Party B and they suddenly aren't doing said ball rubbing as often I'm more likely to look at Party B as the negative influence.
I hope that made sense.
That's my personal look on the issue though. Activision has done little to ever impress me, but I can't recall the last time I was upset with Blizzard (which is rare because I tend to be pretty pessimistic about large game companies because of EA's destruction of Maxis and Westwood).
Interestingly there was a pretty unanimous belief that AIDS was a gay only disease originally and almost no money was spent to investigate it or see how it spreads.Amnestic said:
This is by and large believed to be one of the major contributing factors to the blood transfusion disaster thing that sent the amount of AIDS patients through the roof.
Basically a problem that could have (originally) been easily curbed became an epidemic. Which going on who you quoted jumps back to Vendettas. A Vendetta against homosexuality lead to many innocent people paying the price. Course the vendetta is in the opposite direction in the case of the petition
.
Yes it makes perfect sense, if not for the fact that as part of the merger Blizzard was allowed to remain autonomous [http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/1677/blizzard-stay-autonomous-in-activision-merger-sierra-not-so-lucky]. Ergo it is highly unlikely Activision did anything.theultimateend said:Actually I'll be buying the battle chest in a few years that'll come with Lan that was added a few patches inFlunk said:
So you are kind of right =3.
Historically I've never had a beef with Blizzard.AceDiamond said:
So I tend to look at it like this.
If Party A rubs my balls and says I'm their world 100% of the time, then suddenly Party A teams up with Party B and they suddenly aren't doing said ball rubbing as often I'm more likely to look at Party B as the negative influence.
I hope that made sense.
How about a petition for "Put StarCraft II Into One game, and Stop Delaying the Fucking Game Because We Are Sick and Goddamn Tired of Your Bullshit Activision Blizzard" petition
Well that would be silly, because it's just Blizzard Entertainment making SC2 and not BlActivision.buy teh haloz said:
Also, maybe you should learn some patience. Waiting six months for a better game and online experience is better than having it released now and being plagued with bugs.
Which still doesn't change my point.AceDiamond said:Yes it makes perfect sense, if not for the fact that as part of the merger Blizzard was allowed to remain autonomous [http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/1677/blizzard-stay-autonomous-in-activision-merger-sierra-not-so-lucky]. Ergo it is highly unlikely Activision did anything.theultimateend said:Actually I'll be buying the battle chest in a few years that'll come with Lan that was added a few patches inFlunk said:
So you are kind of right =3.
Historically I've never had a beef with Blizzard.AceDiamond said:
So I tend to look at it like this.
If Party A rubs my balls and says I'm their world 100% of the time, then suddenly Party A teams up with Party B and they suddenly aren't doing said ball rubbing as often I'm more likely to look at Party B as the negative influence.
I hope that made sense.
You are entirely autonomous from me, doesn't change the fact that I am motivating your actions right now.
okay,fair point on the last paragraph. That much I'll say, but considering that StarCraft II will be separated into three games is absolute bullshit. If they have half a mind they would have decided, "Hm. Gamers are sore having to buy the three of them to compile the full StarCraft II, how about we put it into a bundle or distribute them online as expansions?Amnestic said:
What if Warcraft had you buy the same game over and over again just cause of a new class? Is that fair? No. It's called extortion.
Yes it does change the point. If Activision has zero control over the decisions made by Blizzard then that means Blizzard's entire plan regarding SCII being split up into 3 parts and the removal of LAN was a decision that rests solely with them. To say that they were coerced or influenced or forced into these decisions is naive.theultimateend said:
And I don't even like Activision all that much, they're far and away from their best days, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to go "oh well this is hardly Blizzard's problem, mean ol' Bobby Kotick is telling them to mistreat customers"
You mean like the Death Knight class?buy teh haloz said:
SC2 is very simple: It's three full length games, of which you only need to purchase one to access the full multiplayer experience.
Let me repeat that again for clarification: Three full length games.
Not "expansions."
Not "addons."
Not "parts."
They're full length games which can operate entirely independently of each other. Each game will be the length of the original Starcraft. That's what they've said. So for the first game, which is Terrans, that'll be the as long as the original Starcraft.
A number of months after that, another part will get released. This too will be as long as the original Starcraft.
Then, finally, the final part which (you guessed it) will also be as long as the original.
If it looks like a full game, plays like a full game, smells like a full game and costs as much as a full game it's probably a full game.
Being expected to pay full price on a full game of Blizzard quality (Yes, that is something to put a stock in considering their highly heralded history with the RTS genre) isn't ridiculous.
Stop bitching over absolutely nothing. Seriously. If they were selling three 1/3rd length games for full price your objections would be entirely understandable.
But they're not. They're full length at full price. Logic. I has it.
I just signed. Starcraft has and will ALWAYS need LAN! My one friend doesn't have good internet so LAN is the only way I can play with him!
apparently you havent monitored SC2 within the past year. it was originally going to be 3 "separate" campaigns (in this case, same programming, same game engine). about 9 months ago they changed that idea from 3 campaigns to 1 base campaign with 2 expansion campaigns with new units. and its going to be 84-96 missions long at least, it may go so far as to be 108 missions long.Amnestic said:
Okay, my bad, I got the terminology wrong and they're not as independent as I thought. Sorry. Sincerely.toapat said:
As for the missions, assuming I can count there are 30 missions in the original SC.
Obviously 30x3=90, so if it goes up to 108 it's actually an extra 6 missions per game than SC had. Better value for money!
