I did read it.

I'm sure there will be a good chunk of people who would normally be Blizzard customers that will now probably be pirating the product instead of buying it because of the new business model they've developed in terms of "expansion" type gaming.

(I'm one of those people. I bought Diablo and Diablo II, and I bought WoW and WoW: TBC, but will be pirating SC2 just to mess around w/ it and see if it's any better than regular SC, which was a lame game.)

That is exactly the point however.

SC2 may be one of the most pirated games ever, but all that does in the end is give Blizzard more exposure. If you pirate it, you can't play on Battle Net...which is the reason 99.9999999999999999% of the people who buy it want to do.

Cicely is right on the money. People will bitch and moan about it but they'll still drop money on all 3 in the end.

And as Givin pointed out, some people buy a new "Insert Sports Game and New Year Title here" game every year...they feel the need to blow $50 just because the newest edition came out. This is no different then people who're willing to buy all 3 versions of SC2. When SC2 was first announced, Blizzard never said "Released as 1 Game, just like before"...so people who think they're breaking some sort of silent agreement/promise to their customers or fans are fucking stupid.

And again, call it fanboish if you want...but when it comes to a WC/Diablo/SC game, Blizzard has NEVER failed to sell it.

_________________

Its amazing Blizzard how much money they make off their THREE major IP series haha. In the future, I would love to see them have a new IP, and make something unique and different from their other games.

They keep dropping hints about more console support soon. So, I guess we will wait and see

Long as it doesn't end up on the Wii, I'm happy Evilundead! =p



Exactly. What's the point of playing lame single player? Never understood that appeal, honestly, which is part of the reason I don't really enjoy the campaigns too much. Yay for scripted events! It's alright, it's not really boring, but it's nothing like multiplayer with too many PvP variables and randomness to keep track of =)

One hand you guys say that the single player sucks

yet blizz feels its good enough to split into 3

then you say the game is entirely about playing others on the net

which is it? if it's the latter then how could you be upset about the decision?

First off, leave the "you guys" statement out. Not once have I said the Single Player sucks. Secondly, I'm not upset about the decision to split the game in 3...I think its a genius idea from a business standpoint. I simply think they shouldn't charge $50 for each.

I simply pointed out the fact that MOST people who're hardcore SC players likely played through the Single Player Campaign maybe once or twice before committing the rest of their playtime to the Multi-Player or Battle Net. For those who fall into the category of Hardcore Battle Net Player, those people will likely buy 1 of the Campaigns simply for the access to Battle Net. For those who're fanbois, they'll buy all 3...and Blizzard will reap the rewards.

_________________

Well, if it helps some of you old friends out, I could setup a Paypal for you to straight up give Blizzard some cash, since you're so in awe of their marketing prowess

Semi-related to the topic of pirating a Blizzard game...

http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/10/qa- ... ds-ex.html



So pirate all 3 versions of SC2 and D3 to your hearts content, because they know the majority of people who buy them are going to play on Battle Net...

_________________

I was very specific in saying I don't find the appeal of it, that doesn't mean others won't like it. It also doesn't mean that it isn't quality work worth selling to people *if they want to buy it should they choose to*. I personally believe most people buy it to play it multiplayer, that doesn't mean some won't meddle around in the single player campaigns as well for a break or two.

And I'm not in the least upset with the decision =) It's a win/win for me. On the one hand, people will still buy the content and I believe it will be quality enough work to be worth selling to people who want it. On the other hand, pirates can't play, what I believe to be, the most exciting part of the game(assuming they don't steal a code somehow, which I'll admit is possible).

And, even if my belief is true that it's the most anticipated part of the game, that doesn't make the single-player content not worth putting a price tag on. Again, if it's quality content worth selling and people are willing to buy it, more power to them.

It's either sell them in 3 separate games, or wait a year(probably more) for them to finish the other 2 campaigns.

People will buy it just for new content.

Battle.net gives people a reason to buy Blizzard games.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

that or ebay cd keys hehe

If you only need one game to play multiplayer and that one game allows you to pick all 3 races then I don't see why Battle.net is going to stop piracy from happening on games 2 and 3. If game 2 and 3 allows you to add maps to the multiplayer I might see it happening but then again you were always able to download maps from other players if you didn't have it and they did.

Personally, I agree with Givin, and I think it is brilliant, and not just from a marketing standpoint. From an artistic standpoint, I think it's great that instead of giving us 3 normal-sized campaigns in one game, they are giving us 3 huge campaigns across 3 games. If you don't care about Starcraft, then it really won't matter, because you won't care about having more lore regarding the SC universe, and you probably won't be getting the game anyway. If you didn't care about the lore, then you really only need only one copy of the game to play the multiplayer, so you are still only paying $50 or whatever it turns out to be.

Think of it like a book. Let's say Starcraft is The Hobbit, and you really, really, liked it.

So now the Lord of the Ring trilogy (the 3 SC games) is being released. Are you going to buy all 3 books? Probably. Even if each book is $50? Probably.

Now, the true question as a fan......are you upset at having to spend $150 on something you like?

Would you be happier if, instead of 3 books, you got a single book, an abridged version of the trilogy, for $50?

I liked Starcraft a lot, there is no doubt I am going to be buying SC2. I hadn't heard anything about 3 separate games until I read this thread, I haven't been following the development of the game that closely.

IF what they are saying is true, that each campaign is equal in length to the entire original game.....then I think that's a lot of gameplay for my dollar.

I think the main complaint would be if they released all 3 games at the same time, so you saw them next to each other on the shelf and thought to yourself "shit, why didn't they just package it all together instead of trying to get me to buy 3 games instead of one".

I could be wrong....but I don't see that happening. I think it's more like they release the first campaign, then the second, then the third....over the course of a year, maybe even longer. So you buy the Terran campaign, and six months to a year later it's the Zerg one, and six months later it's the Protoss one. That way you have plenty of time to complete a campaign before getting the next one.

Is that honestly any different than releasing game after game and calling it Halo, Halo 2, and Halo 3?

Two things:

1) Blizzard should have announced this on day 1. They created false expectations.
2) They should be releasing them at expac prices.

Problem solved.

i wouldn't call it brilliant

it's just an idea that's commonplace nowadays

blizzard certainly hasn't pioneered the practice.

Look, it's get the game now with the terran campaign or wait a year or 2 for them to finish the other 2 campaigns.

And they still haven't said what they're going to charge.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Just to quote Nebu here: "Expect Nothing."

They never said it would be a single package, nor did they ever hint at it. Just because people were used to a certain trend doesn't make Blizzard obligated to tell you right away if they're going to do something a little differently.

Careful, Neesha will ask you for your bank statement too.

I only have about 3.5 grand in mine. Maybe we can compare new computers next.

There were no false expectations.

_________________

I have to disagree somewhat with this. Majority of gamers out there are expecting games to be released as a complete full version game on the initial release. The only time that gamers expect to make additional purchases to their initial buy is on added content that was not already included with the original purchase (i.e. expansion packs).

Blizzard has already said that Zerg and Protoss releases are not expansion packs, they are full fledged games. Cool. However, that does not change the fact that I would presume 99.99999999999% of gamers out there were expecting that Starcraft 2 would be a full complete game on day 1 with all three factions included, and then they would buy additional content in the future. What gamers are going to get, if you want to break it down, is 50% of a full game on day 1 (Terran, battle.net MP)... 25% of a game a year or so down the road (Zerg)... and the remaining 25% of the game two years or so after day 1 release (Protoss). Of course you could argue that battle.net multiplayer is 25% of a game, but I used those numbers for hypothetical debate.

Bottom line is- are gamers now supposed to hear an announcement of a game, and worry if the complete package (outside of expansion pack content which is not necessary to the original game, just bonus stuff) will come in multiple discs to purchase? Your next major Star Wars game will be broken up into two different discs- one for Light side, one for Dark side? Civ 5 will be broken up into 20 different packages, one representing each civilization where you can play (as a full version game) the history of that civ, in addition to playing that civ in sandbox mode? And then have the ability to play all 20 different civs via multiplayer? And then 2k games releases each other civilization every month, so that if you want to play as the Russians you have to wait 14 months after day 1 release?

I understand the business aspect of this for Blizzard- it definitely is a very good business decision. They KNOW people are going to be buying this game, so they can profit far far far greater by releasing three different full version games for each faction as opposed to just releasing everything in 1 game. But to say that people are stupid because they are complaining, or that they had false expectations... I think every gamer expects a full version game on day 1 release, ESPECIALLY when it is a sequel of a prior game that was a full version release on day 1 of its release.

_________________

This is real fucking easy, do you want it now, or do you want it in a year or 2? If you're fine with waiting then don't waste your time and wait until all 3 are out and they release a battle chest.

Edit:missing letters.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Cicely summed it up nicely for me. I just didn't feel like putting that much time into what I consider to be completely obvious.

I never asked anyone to compare bank statements.

Reading comprehension isn't that hard, is it? For the record, Draagun "challenged" me to compare bank statements. Congrats on your wealth, however.

I'm very fucking concerned as to why you want to compares bank statements with people!

I'm a very pro-Blizzard person because time after time they have delivered a product that I greatly enjoyed. They are also usually fair, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and figure once it's released they will either offer a better priced bundle, expansion pack pricing or so much new content with each version that it is worth it. They don't have many products, but they have an incredible 100% satisfaction (with me at least) for what they do have.

The real thieves are the guys selling complete crap games for $50 each for the xbox 360 etc, that suck right out of the box.

I agree. This is why I don't own many retail games on the Xbox 360 and PS3. I refuse to spend $59.99 on console games. There are many good games out there, but my limit is $49.99 tops for any game (unless its something special).

What I do now is just wait a few months for price drops. Like Mass Effect on the 360. I really enjoy BioWare games, but I waited until the game was $29.99 before I bought it. Same thing for the new Burnout game as well.

Companies raised the price and played the "Cost of making games has gone up ten fold!!!" card like no tomorrow. Yeah whatever...they can kiss my ass

you won't pay for quality games like gears of war and bioshock but you'll buy the retarded flavor of the week wii gimmick games like a rabid fanboy?

color me surprised

the wii will never have a game as good as gears of war

I did buy Gears of War, but I did not pay $59.99 for it It was on sale for $39.99 I believe, and I played it maybe for one hour, and I have not touched it for over two years (almost one year my Xbox 360 was packed up tho).

I'm thinking about giving the game a shoot again, and finishing it for the story at least. From what I remember, the online gameplay was ok, and nothing special. Did you read what I said, xsky? I will not pay more than $49.99 on ANY game on ANY console! This includes Nintendo



I never said I don't buy games buddy! Tell you the truth, Gears of War is not my cup of tea. I bought it because of the hype, and I needed something "next gen" on my Xbox 360. The game is not something I would enjoy.

Btw, I own like 25 Xbox Live Arcade games

I enjoy those types of games a lot more than Gears of War, and Mario Kart Wii is hands down more fun too! Yes, I'm different in terms of my tastes in gaming, but just because I like Nintendo products does not mean they suck. Different games appeal to different folks, xshy. I posted that hardcore games should not buy the Wii. Its not for their target market. I'll take a non or casual game over Gears of War II anyday of the week lol

Look at all the downloadable content I buy. These are the games I enjoy the most. Oh, don't buy many Wii games as well. Download titles ftw!

Bioshock...I was thinking about buying just for the story. I don't like the FPS view in games. It better have a REAL good story in order for me to play thru it.

Fanboi!, burn him!

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

i'm flashing my xbox 360 dvd drive as we speak so soon no more buying xbox 360 games, haha.

Wow "color me surprised"

I'll just say this... I won't be playing a drop of single-player so i'll get the Toss version and see everyone on B.net.


However, I do not like this move. I agree somewhat with Cicely. I think gaming companies are testing the waters to see what people are willing to buy. I also believe that Blizzard is taking advantage of their name and reputation. They deliver, plain and simple, so they are packaging this as 3 games from Blizzard and not one Starcraft 2 game into 3 parts. According to Blizzard, their justification, the game is massive you'll essentially be buying 3 seperate games. They are cashing in on the name and product in market where no one can throw around quality guarentees like they can.

I would have much rather them release Starcraft 2 with more for the consumer but if you want more you'll have to pay for it. There's no subscription for Starcraft 2 so if you end up sinking 120 - 150 bucks for the complete SC2 package just break that out for the longevity of Starcraft 1.

I guess I can argue it both ways but, I don't like where this strategy is leading from a consumer aspect.

Muli

How long until they start charging for major content patches in WoW? I'm reminded of the scene in Goodfellas...

Want to kill Arthas? Fuck you, pay me.

I am very much like our resident Wii fan in the sense that I won't pay full price for a game. I think 60 dollars is ridiculous for a video game, regardless of title. So far I have bought-

Gears of War- 40
Call of Duty 4- 40
Dead Rising- 30
Orange Box- 30
Forza 2- 20
Gears of War 2- 0 /dance /dance /dance

I know Bioshock is at 40, waiting for it to drop to 30 or lower before I buy- I figure I have enough gaming to last me for quite awhile. I also want Oblivion, but it currently is at 60 with the expansion packs. Once it gets to 40 then I will purchase it. Only other game I really would be interested in is Madden 08, and I figure that will drop to 40 or even maybe 30 for the holiday season. Retail industry experts are saying prices this holiday season are going to be the lowest in like 20-30 years on gift giving merchandise, so will be looking at the Best Buy, Target, amazon.com and other similar retailers for their day after Thanksgiving specials...

_________________

One other thing I would add, I have yet to hear anyone complain about the pricing of a Blizzard product when they *actually see the product* in question. The pricing on their games has no doubt gone up in the years, but also so has their workload and the amount of content they pour into their products.

Countless people cried and cried about the pricing of $15 per month as opposed to $10 for EQ. Many of the same comments here were made then as well. "They're just trying to squeeze us for our money!", yada, yada. And yet, World of Warcraft without a doubt has the been the best MMORPG to date(without question in my mind), and completely blew EQ out of the water in terms of both sales AND quality.

Not to mention expansions out the ass - almost none of which, for ANY of their franchises, has almost anyone claimed that they were unworthy of a buyable expansion. Ranging from the first expansion to Warcraft 2, to the Burning Crusade - they never fail to please in content and quality.

Just looking at their history it seems a little silly on the very face of it to start jumping around crying foul when we haven't even gotten a good glimpse at the campaigns yet. And from the very little information we have, particularly regarding the Terran campaign with galaxy maps resembling Mass Effect and cool-looking quest-oriented maps, it looks pretty cool even thus far.

It was a whole generation later Venen, in terms of technology, marketing and public addiction to video gaming. I still think the main lure of an MMO was the independence and freedom to do anything you felt like, and WoW always seemed to point you towards the next step for the majority of the game.

Pretty? Yes. Profitable? God Yes. Best MMO ever? You are free to your opinion.

The only difference between this and releasing 1/3 of a game with two expansion packs is the ability to play all three campaigns at release. It's odd to think people would bitch less if you could play all three campaigns out the box with a big fat '...to be continued' at the end of each.

EQ2 does the 'pay for content patch' model and it has worked thus far. With the makeup of Blizzards content patches it'd be more akin to having to buy Microsoft Plus+. Sure there's extra stuff, but you're also technically paying for bug fixes or items dropped to get out the door faster.

Sarissa Candyangel

What's your opinion?

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

I don't think anyone can contend that objectively speaking, WoW has been the "best' MMO in terms of quality in the history of MMO gaming.

I don't know, the other MMOs have been largely shit stacked upon shit. So saying WoW is the best in terms of quality isn't really saying anything substantial. Unfortunately, there's no real measurement aside from people's opinions, which are usually weighted heavily in favor of their cherry popper.

Personally, I think WoW is the best in terms of quality, though I expect that title to be taken away "any fucking day now." I no longer play WoW, and I'm currently not interested in the expansion. Hopefully a developer can "get it right" in the near future. With the exception of WAR (which I haven't had time to play lately, so shit may have hit the fan with it already), everything since WoW has been an abysmal disappointment.

EQ was a great game. WoW is a great game.

EQ2 was bad in the beginning, and is mediocre now. DAoC was mediocre. Warhammer is mediocre.

AoC sucks cock. LoTRO sucks cock. Vanguard sucks cock. AC and AC2 sucked cock. CoH sucked cock.

Warhammer is mediocre? I can see it being, "not my cup of tea" but the game is not mediocre.

Really it's hard to complain about WAR this early into the game. However, it's completely fair to dislike the game since it's plays to a different audience. I do not thinks it's fair to discredit the game. It's leagues beyond most of the games that have come out. I would say the only other MMO that it should fall into a category with right now is WoW. WoW and WAR are practically equal... one is just for the PvE/Raiders and other for PvP/Siege/RvR's.

Same for me... I like EQ2 over WoW two-fold. However, I have to give WoW it's credit. It is far more polished and offers a much better game to the consumer. Just because I do not like it does not mean it's mediocre, it's just not my thing comparatively to EQ2.

Muli

EQ2 is not a better game than WoW in any facet. Neither is War. They both don't reach that level yet, and EQ2 likely never will.

War simply just isn't as *good* as WoW is. End of discussion.

It's not the end of the discussion, because your idea of "good" is simply your preference. I would be inclined to modify that if you could provide something other than "I don't like PvP, thus WoW is better than WAR" to explain how you come by this reasoning.

He can't, he's a moron. End of discution.

I am not a moron good sir.

And yet, despite the fact that it was next-gen, people still cried their eyes out over the price increase. Does a price increase happen for every next-gen game? No. Games have run for around 40-60 bucks when they're released for what, 10 years now? Perhaps a bit cheaper then due to inflation, of course.

I still think there was more to it than just having better graphics and more next-gen features. Most people will agree the overall quality is simply better, which is at least part of the reason they have so many customers and why it's much more widely appealing. Sure, the gameplay is a little different... I'm not sure how you're implying "less freedom", though. WoW allows for a number of different playstyles, still. The attention to detail, particularly in gameplay, is hard to beat.

I'm just looking for one other game that matches the overall quality product that WoW is. It's not without its flaws, I've stated many of them in the past. But nothing compares, period. We might be bored of it from playing all this time, but that doesn't reflect how good of a game it is. It's lasted this long for many people.

The point is, at some point the quality is just so good and the time in development has paid off to the point where the quality is an edge above the rest, and it justifies the cost. If a game is twice as good as another, you bet your ass I'd be willing to pay more for it, and so would many others.

Why? Other than your opinion there is no evidence. However, there is evidence that they are reaching their goals. Thus, it's no mediocre. WAR does not have people in the CEO / Director chairs jumping ship, Press Releases siting "major changes" in breaths of desperation, rumors of selling to another company such as SoE, etc. WAR is doing well. You can't use opinions to justify. However, you can look at previous games and see through their PR and smiling faces and see if a game is struggling and/or tanking.

We've seen the struggles of EQ2 but somehow they rebuilt. It began mediocre but they've managed to make it a niche game. Vanguard flopped and is getting ready to drop well below 20k subs. AoC flopped, being jumping ship in hopes of reviving their muilti-million dollar sink-hole. WAR is making it. They are doing exactly what they were attempting to do in a MMO and what they haven't done they are currenlty taking huge steps to getting there.

I was impressed to see that they are already implementing two classes that were dropped. How often in EQ1 did content get dropped to never see it again?

To go back to the EQ2 comment. EQ2 (now) does have some great ideas and runs quite well. With WoW they didn't have the luxary to come out running with severed legs and people were looking for something different after sinking their entire lives into EQ. Thus anything SoE or EQ stamped made people sick to their stomach.

WAR might not be the game for you but it deserves some credit. However, you are entitled to your opinion but, be aware of how you represent a game to people who have never played it.

Muli

WAR is a good game, no doubt about it. For me, it just wasn't enough to drop everything I've spent time in WoW on and switch. I don't have much intention of playing both games, honestly. WAR's major achievement in my mind was making PVP *meaningful*. I'm still not convinced that Warhammer's pvp is better than WoW's in terms of tactical combat and split-second manuvering, but in terms of world PVP Warhammer instantly blows WoW out of the water in that respect.

I would still say WoW is a more quality game, though I will admit I doubt I played it anywhere near as much as some people here played it - so I don't know much about the higher-end game. From what I've seen the quality is close - but not quite WoW. It just doesn't feel as polished - from NPC pathing issues to animations to stale quests and other content. It needs time to develop these things, I understand that, but as it stands it's just not as polished.

EQ2, well, quite frankly the gameplay sucked. Abilities seemed like a mishmash of everyone else's abilities, leveling and tradeskilling was a complete grindfest, and the mechanics felt bloated and sloppy. Not to mention the pvp was a complete mess.

Personally, I'm very much looking forward to WOTLK right now. It's shaping up to be even more of a blast of an expansion than Burning Crusade.

Well said Venen. You nailed it pretty much 100% chief.