Starcraft 2 To Be a Trilogy 253
The Starcraft 2 gameplay panel was an eventful one at Blizzcon today. The developers faced an obstacle when designing the game; the plans they had were just too massive to implement in a single game on anything approaching a reasonable timeline. Their solution was to divide the game up into three separate, stand-alone titles: Terran: Wings of Libery, Zerg: Heart of the Swarm, and Protoss: Legacy of the Void. Read on for further details.
Each campaign will have on the order of 26-30 missions. The path players take through the missions can vary — the storyline branches frequently — but they will end in the same place. The games will run alongside each other; there will not be cliffhanger endings leading from one to another, and each game will focus on a different part of the story. The Terran campaign will focus on Jim Raynor, and the Zerg campaign will be all about Kerrigan. Multiplayer functionality will be in place for all three races from the start.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
[...] they really do need most customers to buy the whole game for $150 a pop.
Where did it say that they were charging full price for each one? For all we know, they could charge $50 for the first game, and $20 for each "expansion" campaign you buy (or some other form of arbitrary numbers).
Quite... For all we know... (Score:3, Funny)
They could also be giving them away for free.
To third world children.
With their free Blizzard-sponsored OLPC.
And a lollipop.
Chery flavor.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
and a pony
Re: (Score:2)
OMG PONIES!!?!!11
Re:Shenanigans. (Score:5, Insightful)
Where did it say that they were charging full price for each one?
It didn't, the summary was thankfully terse on what would have been interesting details.
I think I'm going to buy all of their new titles, just on general principles whether I play them or not. Blizzard is #1 in the industry at the moment. Blizzard supports Mac OS X out of the box and their developers worked with the Linux wine guys so the Warden didn't kick out people who want to play on Linux.
I'm sick and tired of people who claim Linux and Mac OS X are worthless because no one does games for them, but someone does. I, for one, am going to welcome Gaming Overlord Blizzard right where it counts - in giving them new sales.
Re:Shenanigans. (Score:4, Informative)
Trust me, in Australia, we will be paying $99-$120 per pack, as always.
Re: (Score:2)
If they charge 15-20 bucks for each campaign, that'd be fair. I couldn't give a shit about the protoss, but a few years down the line when they're in the bargain bin I might drop 10 bucks to see how the story from SC1 turned out for the terrans in the end.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I do not see how "no cliffhangers" logically leads to "simultaneous release".
If you remember Starcraft 1 at all, you should see how easily the game could be broken up like this, and yet how badly is would affect the story telling to force it into cliffhangers. Part of what was great about StarCraft 1 was how the different plot lines wrapped together.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What I don't understand is, if each game is going to include the full multiplayer component (the primary draw for Starcraft), that means the last two titles are just single player missions that won't include new units or buildings. Doesn't that just make them mission packs that shouldn't cost more than $15-20?
I just don't understand why they would part out the least wanted aspect of the game as if it's the most important. Multiplayer is the primary feature people are waiting for.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What Blizzard, it is just a front for Vivendi. The release of this storey seems more like a feeler so they can see what they can actually get away with. One thing they have to be really careful is the whole startcraft game play style has been done to death since starcraft originally came out and that game play style has become pretty dull and boring. Just dressing up the graphics and then dumping that same old same old, game play style really wont cut it, let alone trying to increase the returns on the eng
Re: (Score:2)
If it has been done do death since, why is starcraft and warcraft 3 still the most played RTS's in the world?
Re: (Score:2)
They're not communicating clearly because they haven't decided yet. SC2 is still far from release and the 3 games is still on the idea stage.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but none of the details are final yet (other then 3 massive campaigns).
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how I interpret it at all. I suspect that the three plotlines are running in parallel - there's no cliffhangers because they all run from the beginning of the Starcraft 2 plotline to the end of the Starcraft 2 plotline, they just focus on different races.
I'm going to invent some hypothetical plotline here: perhaps one part of the Terran side's ending involves some allied Protoss buddies showing up and saying "hey hey, we successfully managed our side mission, which we're not going to talk about i
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not.
Think about it. You 50 bucks usually buys about X amount of hours.
There making x times 3 amount of hours. Three games.
Of course, if each game is 10 stinkin' hours, then yeah there just milking there fan base.
I have a high degree of confidence they will be over 10 hours each.
Blizzards quality has earned my confidence.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Meh. I don't even like RTS games that much, though I enjoy certain aspects of single player. I hate multiplayer RTS. That said, I _LOVE_ the first three titles in the Warhammer 40k Dawn of War series. When they gave up on making content for their expansions and started bulding the bulk of the gameplay out of their skirmish mode I stopped playing, but those guys know how to make a fun RTS.
They're also the ones who made Company of Heroes, which I never would have tried if I hadn't played DoW first, and which
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>And certainly better than some overbloated Blizztard crap that, despite their assurance it doesn't end with a cliffhanger, will >most assuredly end in a cliffhanger, just like every other game they've ever made.
How can you call starcraft bloated after being a fan of CoH and DoW.
The whole game design is specifically anti-bloat where if a unit is not important enough to gameplay it gets cut so the number of units per team stay near the ideal number of 12.
Re:Shenanigans. (Score:4, Informative)
According to http://pc.ign.com/articles/918/918895p1.html [ign.com] they're planning to have a 1 year gap between games.
Allow me to translate... (Score:5, Funny)
Effing brilliant (Score:5, Funny)
Those jackholes are going to make me shell out 150 to 200 dollars for this game, aren't they?
God, Blizzard is evil!
Re: (Score:2)
So? Don't buy it then (or leech)
it's not mandatory to play this game you know
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Guess so ^_^
pricing: (Score:2, Funny)
each installment is yours for $65 or grab the extended super amazing battle.net chest gold version for $200 with a collectors mouse pad and protoss boxers*
* for a limited time only.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, each unsubstantiated claim of retail price has built on the last one so far. First, it was $150 for all three. Then "the low, low price of $59.99 each" and now $65. If we keep this thread going, the price will grow so massive that it collapses in on itself and we can afford it again.
Uh, why the whine over three games...? (Score:5, Interesting)
For those of you whining about "whaaaa 300% markup"..
Each campaign has 36 missions. That's more than the original Starcraft. Further, the campaign will be branched (ie, you'll have choices that actually effect what happens, which missions are selected, what happens). It might also feature co-op multiplayer, not sure on that one yet.
Or, what they announced, was a game called Starcraft II and the following two expansions to it. You know that's how it'll work. They won't just ship new missions and charge you retail for it, it will feature new units, balance, etc.
Starcraft was released, people were happy. Brood War was released, and people didn't whine about Blizzard "ripping them off" because hey, this expansion also had content.
Starcraft II is exactly the same, and yet, people are whining now...? Am I missing something?
Re:Uh, why the whine over three games...? (Score:4, Insightful)
SC
Starcraft came out and turned out to be a success.
People wanted more, Blizzard saw that it was selling, Blizzard made more of SC to sell.
With more story, better AI and strategy, tweaks and new units.
SCII
Blizzard announces game.
People say "Well its about time" and "Give it to us".
Blizzard says "Hey! How about instead of 1 disk, we sell you 3 disks instead? We got the idea even before the game was completed. And which we have fluffed-out enough with video and audio so it fits onto 3 discs instead of 1, so that you could buy 3 discs instead of 1."
Its a strategy game.
There is no practical reason why all 3 of it's announced campaigns should now be able to fit on a single disk and come out at the same time.
Its not like there are months or years of development left once they release the first one. Its a bloody MAP PACK!
Multiplayer being "functional from the start" and "games running alongside each other" means no new units or functionality with campaign 2 and 3.
They are making 3 of them JUST SO they could sell 3 of them, 3 times.
Plain and simple.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Blizzard says "Hey! How about instead of 1 disk, we sell you 3 disks instead? We got the idea even before the game was completed. And which we have fluffed-out enough with video and audio so it fits onto 3 discs instead of 1, so that you could buy 3 discs instead of 1."
Blizzard says, "Hey! This is going to take a long time to produce to meet our quality expectations, and quite frankly designing a massive branching campaign with multiplayer in mind is a challenge.. we can either take from here until som
Re: (Score:2)
Blizzard says, "Hey! This is going to take a long time to produce to meet our quality expectations, and quite frankly designing a massive branching campaign with multiplayer in mind is a challenge.. we can either take from here until some time in 2015 to complete all three campaigns for one game..."
Dang, I just posted the same thing above and did not see your comment.
You are exactly correct. No Duke Nukem Forever IIs from Blizzard ...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But if each one of those has a full game's worth of content, and the second two are priced like expansions/upgrades, then it would be worth it to most people. I don't understand the indignation when we don't even know the pricing scheme. Blizzard isn't stupid, they're not going to price themselves out of this. They want Starcraft 2 to sell 10 million copies.
O RLY? (Score:2)
While you are at it, why not compare it to Star Wars movie and it's sequels? Logic is about the same.
Half-Life 1 - 1998
Half-Life 2 - 2004
HL2: Episode One - 2006
HL2: Episode Two - 2007
HL2: Episode Three - they are working on it.
Notice the time between the "expansions"? Its there because episode 2 DID NOT EXIST back when episode 1 came out.
And the time-line is sequential. HL1, HL2, Ep1, Ep2...
SCII will have 3 releases at practically the same time - with parallel time-lines.
And I could bet that at least one of
Re: (Score:2)
So some people actually believe they held back units for an expansion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Starcraft II is exactly the same, and yet, people are whining now...? Am I missing something?
You're new here. Whining is a way of life with us.
What people are not thinking about it is that the real reason Blizzard is breaking this apart into pieces is prevent it from becoming Duke Nukem Forever II, instead of Starcraft 2.
Re: (Score:2)
> Uh yeah and how many of those will be tutorial missions? Half the missions in each of the campaigns in the original Starcraft were tutorial missions.
Uh, SC had one tutorial. From there it was a gradual ramp up in terms of what units they allowed you access to.
> Uh, they just said that the multiplayer will feature all 3 races and be 100% out of the box. If they add new units, doesn't that defeat the purpose of claiming that the multiplayer is "complete"?
Games change. They want each product to stand o
Re: (Score:2)
Point 3 which you base your entire argument on is WRONG. The current plan is for 1 year cap between releases:
http://pc.ign.com/articles/918/918895p1.html [ign.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that the 3rd campaign has a planned release of 2 years after SC2 I don't think you actually want them to release it as one game, unless you really like to wait 2 more years for it.
Also it's probably reasonable to assume that the blizzard developers are not complete retards. With 99% certainty I can say that anything introduced multiplayer wise in the 2nd and 3rd game will be patched into the first game.
Blizzard are very very serious about the multiplayer/e-sport capabilities of SC2.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it would create a mess multiplayer wise. If each game contained unique multiplayer mechanics you'd end up supporting 3!=5 different combinations that can't play with eachother. It makes much more sense to make the differences in multiplayer decorative rather then as changed gameplay.
To make it even messier they actually have plans to make an expansion for SC2 that'll add a 4th race and it would be completely ridiculous if terran+expansion was a completely different game then zerg+expansion.
So my bet
Even more like Warhammer 40k (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, it's all a big ripoff of Warhammer 40k, so they might as well take even more inspiration from Games Workshop by soaking their loyal customers for triple damage in the wallet.
Linux Support? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have intentionally stayed the hell away from anything about the game in the press. I loved SC1 and _still_ play it. Does anyone know if there will be Linux support this time around? I haven't had a box running Windows for many, many years. I don't want to have to buy Cedega on top of it, but I guess I may have to.
Also, is there a release date yet?
I ask here because I DON'T want to go to the website and get everything spoiled before I even get the game.:(
Re: (Score:2)
Errrr, how are you playing Starcraft - WINE, right? What makes you think SC2 won't run in WINE?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there are a few games these days with native Linux support, and some others with *official* Wine support. I doubt SC2 will have either one, but it would be nice. And I imagine it will run on Wine, but it may be a while before it works well.
There is really no reason to buy Cedega anymore, wine is getting pretty good. If anything, buy Crossover Games, as they actually give back to Wine, unlike Cedega's broken promises.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think SC2 won't run in WINE?
Since the first StarCraft came out, Microsoft has added new API calls to Windows. These may not have a counterpart in current Wine. If StarCraft 2 uses any of these, it won't work in Wine. Or were you claiming that Blizzard has tested SC2 for Windows in Wine alongside Windows XP and Windows Vista?
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone know if there will be Linux support this time around?
I submitted that question in the Ask Blizzard at Blizzcon article recently.
Blizzard supports Mac OS X out of the box. The support is *outstanding*. So there is no reason why they could not support a native Linux install with little additional cost to them.
Anyone who is seriously interested in breaking the monopoly on computer gaming, should buy Blizzard games and play them on Macs or Linux with Wine and make sure Blizzard knows that. I have done that.
Blizzard is #1 at the moment and they are receptive to
Re: (Score:2)
Blizzard is #1 at the moment and they are receptive to us, so if you care, vote with your pocket book.
I'll wait to vote with my pocket book until there's either 1.) a native client for Linux, or 2.) I know for sure that it'll work ok in Wine. I'm not going to pay first, then hope it'll work when I get it home.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll wait to vote with my pocket book until there's either 1.) a native client for Linux, or 2.) I know for sure that it'll work ok in Wine.
There's never going to be a native client unless we demonstrate support. And this is a chicken and egg thing.
As for 2), check out the Wine web pages. They devote a lot of effort into classifying programs that run under Wine and you might find they have already classified what you want to try as supported.
We are never going to win this thing with the Stallman approach - "you give me exactly what I want or fuck you". We can win it by giving as much encouragement as we can to our potential allies.
We also ha
Re: (Score:2)
With WOW, Blizzard has a history of working with the WINE (well, Cedega) people to make it more or less "compatible" with GNU/Linux (perhaps we can call it WINE/GNU/Linux). Probably due to Blizzard's working with Cedega, the game is such that it runs well on WINE anyway. From from a guarantee for SC2 though.
Also, I agree about not wanting to pay for Cedega. It's a matter of principal. Me, I hope they go out of business.
Re: (Score:2)
Blizzdot is in full swing! (Score:3, Interesting)
Now that Blizzcon is in full swing, I can look forward to every announcement by blizzard being slashdotted and front paged for the next few days. . . .
Re: (Score:2)
I can look forward to every announcement by blizzard being slashdotted
Ur, Blizzard has a vastly larger customer base than Slashdot has readers. More likely, a link from www.worldofwarcraft.com would bring down slashdot.org. Inverse slashdotting?
They're missing the point (Score:5, Interesting)
Part of the inherent coolness of StarCraft was that you got to experience all three races with very three different play mechanisms across the game.
Now they want to make each campaign a separate game? It just doesn't sound nearly as interesting to me, no matter how big the campaigns are or what sort of "metagame" they add to it. It won't cover for the fact that, conceptually, it still feels like a step down.
Obviously, the world isn't coming to an end here - but I wonder if Blizzard's near perpetual success is leading to a bit of disconnect here with the fans. When you can do no wrong for so long, you might start to believe that you can do no wrong even when you're doing wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, wait until they're all out then? Maybe they'll allow you to play the missions in chronological order or at least a more mixed campaign experience.
Victim of WoW's success (Score:5, Funny)
I can see the conversation now at Blizzard's headquarters:
Bean counter: "Hey, we're making money hand over fist with World of Warcraft! How can you justify diverting money into an expensive new project without subscriptions?"
Developer: "We could put subscriptions into multiplayer."
Bean counter: "No, that could take away from our golden cash cow."
Developer: "We... could split the single player into three map packs and charge for all three?"
Bean counter: "Won't consumers feel gipped? Could that cut into sales?"
Developer: "We'll add more 'mine X resource, build Y units and rush the enemy base' missions to fluff it out. Total gameplay hours will be 3 times as long!"
Bean counter: "Brilliant!"
Re: (Score:2)
You know, they could cut 2/3rds out of each one and sell one half ass game.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
only there aren't 10M people playing on the subscription method. Asia's players have a different payment system.
good try though.
I'll buy em all (Score:4, Insightful)
I loved Starcraft. Played it regularly for many years, often going through bouts where my girlfriend, later wife, and I would play every weekend for 8-10 weeks in a row. We played through the single player, and it certainly was compelling, but multiplayer was "where it's at". I've put more time into Starcraft than any other game, hands down. Possibly more than every other game I've played put together, although you might have to take Starflight [wikipedia.org] and its sequels [wikipedia.org] out [wikipedia.org].
I can easily look at Starcraft 2 and justify buying all three races the same way a WoW player can say "$15/month is cheaper entertainment than anything else I can do". I am totally sold on the new visual direction they're going in, even making single player more muted and dirty than bright and easy to distinguish multiplayer. I love the characters I'm supposed to love and I have the characters I'm supposed to hate.
I just wonder how much money this is going to cost me in babysitting and white chocolate mochas at my local wifi-enabled coffee house. 3 discs may be the cheapest part.
What you're all overlooking (Score:3, Insightful)
Starcraft (and Brood War) came out in 1998. Since then, Blizzard's been providing online play AND a continued stream of patches and updates, completely free of charge. Even if you paid full price for each piece back when they launched (let's say $50 each), I think you've gotten your money's worth out of the game over the past decade.
Yes, Starcraft 2 may cost more up front by being packaged this way, but if Blizzard's past is any indication, the game's going to give you years of play, with the online support free for the duration. This, of course, is on top of the game itself, which (again, judging from the past) is going to be polished, balanced, and a blast to play.
Blizzard's doing the smart thing here - if they were to rush the game and risk the content being broken or unbalanced even slightly, they'd get ripped apart for this. Even if people bitch now, giving the chunks of the game more development time will lead to a better product...and let's face it, probably 95%+ of the people here whining are going to buy the game and its expansions as soon as they're able to.
And for the record, Starcraft was March '98, and Brood War was November '98. The game and its expansion pack were eight months apart - that's not exactly a long time between the two of them, and, given how long development and marketing take, I'm willing to bet that Brood War wasn't conceived after they'd had time to digest the sales figures from Starcraft for a while. Same goes for Retribution and Insurrection - more content, sold separately, mere months after the release of Starcraft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I just wish I could beat you over the head with the SUMMARY that you didn't even bother to read before blasting off a comment.
Go back to youtube
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
i was going to make some kind of contextual reply to your comment, but i just couldn't bring myself to read it.
i only read the story tags.
Re: (Score:2)
Tags are too verbose for me. I only look at the topic picture.
Re:Speaking of Multiplayer (Score:5, Funny)
Wow. I'm lazy, I just blindly click the page and mash the keyboard now and then. I don't even speak English, I'm just very, very improbable.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You and your infinite improbability keyboard!
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, its fun, except when it causes a whale to spontaneously exist in my room. Have you ever tried to explain to federal wildlife officials how an endangered species got crammed into your apartment?
Re: (Score:2)
'I gave it some tuna and then it wouldn't stop following me'?
Re: (Score:2)
blizzcon starcraft starcraft2 games rts story
There are 5 other tags for you to read. Why limit yourself to the last one?
Re:Speaking of Multiplayer (Score:4, Funny)
We've gone from RTFA to RTFS, now.
Do people on /. actually read anything?
I read your comment. I can has cookie?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. And thank God for the color scheme they are using in the beta index and firehose which makes even article titles unreadable. We don't have to read anything now! W00t!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Speaking of Multiplayer (Score:5, Informative)
Multiplayer functionality will be in place for all three races from the start.
Re:Speaking of Multiplayer (Score:5, Informative)
There IS no UID 666. You must be new here...
Actually, ACs internally are uid 666, they just don't display.
Re:Am I the only one? (Score:5, Funny)
Including this one; their stated reason is untrue, this is a marketing ploy to sell more units.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps you should have taken a moment to confirm that indeed, every other post in the thread says the exact same thing.
They didn't exist when I started my post, but thanks for your thoughtful insight.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Split Startcraft2 in three pieces.
2. ???
3. Profit!
4. Profit!
5. Profit!
Yeah yeah, everyone else already said the same thing, but mine's better :)
-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if they try to stagger the releases of this (easier for development, spread out profits, add in new bug fixes and balances with each release)
My take as a developer, though not a game developer. I've bolded the parts where you answer your own question. I think it will be staggered.
Give these guys a break. Sure they make great profit (which isn't a crime yet, when done honestly like Blizzard has done) and they deserve it! They make awesome and fun games and they take extremely good care of their customers. The easiest entertainment money I ever spent was setting up a second WoW account for my wife.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Zeratul (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just lame. Game companies seem to be coming up with more and more ways to gouge consumers. Now releasing THREE Starcraft titles... Sorry Blizz, you just lost a sale. What? Making an expansion pack doesn't make you enough money any more? Making 75 million plus a month off WOW isn't good enough? Activision must owe some loansharks.
"How can we make more money?"
"Well screw it. We pay the writers very little. Just have them write longer stories and VOILA! One game, but three sales for the whole thing!"
"Jenkins, you're a genius! You'll find a whore and some gin waiting on your car when you leave."
Ah well, one less game to buy. Or three actually.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't exactly a new development. Remember Diablo II? Its 'expansion' was really just the end of the story started in the main game, a.k.a. Act V. The same could be said about Warcraft III and its expansion.
Re:Zeratul (Score:5, Interesting)
I said "What, are expansion packs not making your enough money?" I mean we already know multiple game developers remove stuff from their games (latest example: Plant creator in "Spore") so they can put them in the expansion. So yes, I'm fully aware this is done. Marketing three different standalone games is ridiculous. I guarantee there will be some reason, some hook to force folk into buying all 3. Whereas all races are activated for multiplayer supposedly, I would expect each version will have something like skirmish maps exclusive too each version which you can only play if you own said version, or something similar along those lines. Some way to force all but the most ardent resistor to buy all three.
Re:Zeratul (Score:5, Interesting)
Has it ever occurred to anyone that this is actually a good thing? What blizzard is saying is that their massive team of elite game developers simply do not have the time to fit the enormous amount of content they want to put in. This means that there will most likely be 2 more WELL-WORTH games that follow the series coming out. I know how much I wanted to go to blizzard and say "can you make another?" when it came to the brood war expansion. If there were only campaigns that came with the expansions, then people would just pirate it and buy the cd-keys for cheep online. Chances are, the expansions will have more units/buildings, more areas, more neutral objects, and possibly new functions to the old units/buildings. And chances are each one will redefine the way the game is played, and lead to many more hours of good gaming, which is much more than you can say about a whole lot of other expansions.
Re: (Score:2)
That's largely my thought, if they have enough material to justify several games, I'd rather have several games rather than one mega sized mega priced game.
It's really more a matter of how good the game is and how much time I'd spend playing it for the money. Considering Blizzard, it's almost certain to be worth the cost in the end, if for no other reason than the online play.
Re:Zeratul (Score:5, Insightful)
That's largely my thought, if they have enough material to justify several games, I'd rather have several games rather than one mega sized mega priced game.
Historically additional content that uses the same engine is called an expansion. All they're doing is bundling the engine with the expansions and charging full price for them.
They develop the engine once, you pay for it 3 times. Sucker.
Me, I'll just wait until they release a 'box set' with all 3 for what a regular game costs; it probably won't take more than 6-12 months after release.
Re:Zeratul (Score:5, Interesting)
"Effectively each game in the will be an expansion"
http://kotaku.com/5062018/starcraft-ii-lead-producer-on-the-split-single-player-campaign [kotaku.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is, to keep up with everyone else in multiplayer, you'll now have to buy three whole Starcraft games for one multiplayer experience. You're paying three times. It just...sucks. You say we'll be getting two more worthy games, but we're actually getting minor expansion packs that finish the original game.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what you're saying is that you only plan to buy three more games in your lifetime, and you don't want the other two titles to be Starcraft related? Why did you even bother to buy BroodWar when you already paid for Starcraft???
It shouldn't matter if Blizzard decides to release three games focusing on an individual race. What should matter is whether each game, with its sets of tweaks, would be worth paying $50-75 each. Perhaps, perhaps not.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, you're paying $50 for an engine and a campaign. Then you're paying $100 for 2 more campaigns.
Re:Zeratul (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you're paying $50 for an engine and a campaign. Then you're paying $100 for 2 more campaigns.
Right... except normally you'd pay $50-60 for 2 more campaigns, in boxes called 'expansions' normally for between 19 and 29 bucks, instead of the price of a full game.
Remind me why I need 3 copies of the game engine? They only developed it once, why do I need to pay for it 3 times?
Re: (Score:2)
Those expansions would also usually come with a couple extra units, and a new race or two. This one has all races built in to all of them.
Re:Zeratul (Score:4, Insightful)
Like a smoker, or a motorist, you know exactly what will happen. You will make a crapload of noise about how stupid it is that these things are so expensive. You will vow to all within earshot that you will never surrender your hard earned money to such a blatant cash grab.
And then you will walk into the store within 3 days of its release and purchase all three games, probably pre-ordering them.
You will complain. You will whine. And in the end you will buy all three within days of their release. And ultimately you will enjoy them.
I know this because your not complaining that Starcraft sucks or is over rated. Your just angry that you are being gouged for something you know you will probably pay for no matter what.
END COMMUNICATION
Advance news of GotY and you still complain? (Score:3, Insightful)
I also find it interesting that I see so many World of Warcraft advertisements on slashdot pages...
The Wrath of the Lich King expansion if it makes its release date will be Game of the Year this year. Otherwise if it misses and comes next January, it will be Game of the Year next year.
Most of the time, people complain about things being posted here too late, like say after it appeared on digg a week ago. Consider the WotLK ads to be the PTB's at slashdot apology for all the late articles we've been given.
I think they're wasting money on their ads. Unlike Microsofties and Microsoft Vista, us WoWers are
Re: (Score:2)
Please go back through this article and read the messages I have posted. Blizzard cares enough about us to have worked with the wine guys to make the Warden work with wine.
That's better than anyone else and they are #1 and we to start somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
We want officially and native supported Linux version of their games, wine doesn't count as native.
And I want a stableful of magic ponies, and you know what? We're currently equally likely to get what we want.
OMGPonies!
Re: (Score:2)
I like Wine and it's a great effort to make some win32 applications (including games) work on Linux, but lets demand native Linux games.
I agree, but we have to vote strategically and economically here.
Our position is actually very good. Blizzard is #1. Blizzard supports Mac OS X (via Open GL) out of the box. It's not half-assed support, it is Blizzard-class support.
They've worked with us once before - getting WoW under Wine to work with the Warden. The solution, is obvious.
Buy their games and play them under Mac OS X and Wine (for now). When you get Blizzard customer polls (like I did earlier today), make sure you put in somewhere how
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a size issue, it's a development time issue.