Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

StarCraft II Beta To Begin This Month

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the zerg-inc dept.

Games 182

mrxak writes "It's official; Activision Blizzard's much-anticipated sequel to 12-year-old StarCraft is going to enter closed beta 'this month,' according to company President Mike Morhaime during an investor conference call. This comes in the wake of the SC2 beta forums showing up briefly on Battle.net. If you've got a Battle.net account, it's probably not too late to opt-in for upcoming Blizzard beta tests."

cancel ×

182 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Finally (4, Funny)

Cobralisk (666114) | more than 4 years ago | (#31099760)

I was beginning to think this was Starcraft Forever

Re:Finally (1)

magsol (1406749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31099804)

StarCraft II: The Undiscovered Game.

Re:Finally (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#31099902)

I think you mean Starcraft Ghost. [wikipedia.org] Although when they split the game into three parts, that was what was most worrying about the whole thing looking like DNF.

Re:Finally (2, Insightful)

FTWinston (1332785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31099950)

Looking like DNF would be it having the scope of all those three parts, but being released as a single package rather than three, tbh.

Re:Finally (0)

Trifthen (40989) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100048)

Seriously. I have a battered old Game Informer from 2006 that spoke about it as if the release were impending, complete with pics of game footage.

Three years later and it's in beta!?

Re:Finally (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100140)

Welcome to Blizzards PR campaign.... BRILLIANT!

Re:Finally (5, Insightful)

Conchobair (1648793) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100196)

This is actually a good thing. Blizzard has the habit of not releasing unfinished games and even cancelling games if they start to look like they will be bad (SC:Ghost, WC:Adventures). I would much rather wait for a full and complete game without content cut out to meet a release date like EA-Bioware does (KOTOR2).

You know when this game comes out its going to be polished and will kick ass and kill several Koreans in teh process.

Re:Finally (1)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100462)

Your comments regarding KOTOR2 (though not blame, as they didn't fail to meet their schedule!) should be addressed to LucasArts; EA and Bioware had no involvement in the game.

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31101420)

Lucas Arts and Obsidian

Obsidian for promising the world in a tiny dev window

Lucas Arts on insisting on an xmas release. Damn the bugs!

Re:Finally (1)

besalope (1186101) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100480)

This is actually a good thing. Blizzard has the habit of not releasing unfinished games and even cancelling games if they start to look like they will be bad (SC:Ghost, WC:Adventures). I would much rather wait for a full and complete game without content cut out to meet a release date like EA-Bioware does (KOTOR2). You know when this game comes out its going to be polished and will kick ass and kill several Koreans in teh process.

KOTOR2 was Obsidian not Bioware. Same with Neverwinter Nights 2, Obsidian not Bioware. Bioware still releases quality games (Dragon Age, Mass Effect 1&2), while the former Black Isle group (Obsidian) is losing their touch.

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31101222)

>quality games (Dragon Age, Mass Effect 1&2)
>quality games
>(Dragon Age, Mass Effect 1&2)

HA HA HA, OH WOW!

Re:Finally (2, Interesting)

Vaphell (1489021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100818)

ghost wasn't going to be bad imho
my bet is they developed the game for the old xbox and when the next gen consoles were about to arrive they thought that SC:Ghost won't have much appeal given crappier gfx so they scrapped it.

Re:Finally (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101694)

"This is actually a good thing."

Only if you're use to the Duke Nukem Forever release schedule.

At least I know every $200 netbook [liliputing.com] should be able to run to run Starcraft II since the game was developed 2005-2006. Seriously though, 12 years is too long, especially on a game that's this amazing.

Re:Finally (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101366)

Maybe they didn't want to risk potentially eating into WoW's market while it was growing at a fast pace, or perhaps they wanted to build in some of the tricks they learned with WoW into SCII - either way so long as we get a better game as a result I can live with a little wait.

This beta should be...fun? (1)

N3tRunner (164483) | more than 4 years ago | (#31099776)

The SC2 beta should be fairly enjoyable judging from the early versions of the game that we've seen in the videos that they've released already. There may be a few balancing issues, but the game looks pretty solid overall. Although, you never know how much you can trust the media released by a game developer, especially one with the technical wizardry of Blizzard.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (4, Insightful)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31099862)

I'm sure the game might be fun. But given that Blizzard has ripped out local LAN play (which is part of what made the original great), and made it into 3 $60 games instead of a single game with all 3 campaigns... fuck them. I am not a wallet, I am a customer. I used to be a Blizzard fan, and I may get this game eventually when it hits the bargain bins. PC games are losing ground to consoles because the fucking game manufacturers keep trying to turn the PC into a console.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (0, Redundant)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31099956)

PC games are losing ground to consoles because the fucking game manufacturers keep trying to turn the PC into a console.

Turning PCs into consoles? That won't happen easily in the RTS genre because the controls are so different.

But in other genres, let me know when multiplayer PC games designed for use with a single PC and HDTV become common, and I'll agree with you. But right now, they appear to be limited to Serious Sam, Left 4 Dead, and EA Sports.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (4, Insightful)

darkvizier (703808) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100050)

PC games are losing ground to consoles because the fucking game manufacturers keep trying to turn the PC into a console.

Turning PCs into consoles? That won't happen easily in the RTS genre because the controls are so different.

But in other genres, let me know when multiplayer PC games designed for use with a single PC and HDTV become common, and I'll agree with you. But right now, they appear to be limited to Serious Sam, Left 4 Dead, and EA Sports.

I think the GP was talking about DRM/anti-pirating measures, not the user controls. Essentially they're trying to turn computer games into the black box that console games are.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101442)

Also the fact that they used to release add-ons and make it easier for people to write their own stuff, now they want to control and market all of that content so that they can keep charging you months after the initial game purchase - there used to be an excuse for this on the consoles (before hard drives, when additional content had to be packaged and took space on a shelf in a store, there's no excuse now).

Re:This beta should be...fun? (1)

Grandim (1390511) | more than 4 years ago | (#31099958)

Its not 3 60$ games, its one game and two expansions. Each SC2 storyline is focused on playing mostly a single race but will have more content than the original game did with all 3.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (2, Informative)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100144)

Ok, so one $60 game and two $50 expansions. (plus DLC or some other asinine way to milk more funds out of the customer, er, consumer.)

Re:This beta should be...fun? (0, Troll)

brkello (642429) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100474)

If you want to be taken seriously, stop exaggerating like an emo.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (1)

Mystra_x64 (1108487) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101158)

If you want to be taken seriously, stop labeling those you are talking to. Thank you very much.

- Your thought police.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (2, Insightful)

brkello (642429) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101588)

Saying someone is acting like an emo doesn't mean I am labeling them. That would be saying "You are an emo".

The game + expansions won't cost that much. The person has no idea how much they will cost, but we know they won't be that much. So they are getting angry over something non-existent.

I honestly don't care about being taken seriously anymore on here. I know my view point isn't the same as the vocal majority and I will be modded down for that. I should be more respectful, but quite frankly, I have lost pretty much all respect for the majority of people who post here. Obviously, there are still some awesome people way more smart than I am here, but they sure aren't the majority.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100086)

Since when are PC games $60? You're thinking next-gen console games.

PS3 and 360 are current-gen (0, Flamebait)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100122)

Since when are PC games $60?

Since $ also meant other currencies than the United States dollar. Or since it cost $60 to buy three copies of a $20 bargain game, one for each player.

You're thinking next-gen console games.

Xbox 360 and PLAYSTATION 3 are the current generation.

Re:PS3 and 360 are current-gen (2, Insightful)

brkello (642429) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100512)

*rolls eyes* Come on. You know what he meant. We obviously don't know the prices of next gen games. we both know, he is referring to the 360 and the PS3. There's no reason to be such a pedant all the time.

Re:PS3 and 360 are current-gen (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31100864)

You're thinking next-gen console games.

Xbox 360 and PLAYSTATION 3 are the current generation.

Don't be so sure. I can easily find plenty of articles online that clearly say that the PS2/Xbox/GameCube are 'next-gen consoles'. This naturally makes the PS3 and 360 'future-gen' or 'post-gen consoles'.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (1)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100468)

Modern Warfare 2 was $60 on PC, as will be Assassin's Creed II.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31100596)

Modern Warfare 2

Re:This beta should be...fun? (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100120)

And for these exact reasons I anticipate it topping Spore for one of the most pirated games ever.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (1)

jerep (794296) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100228)

The good thing about the beta is that it will allow hackers to work on a bnet-to-lan emulator, which shouldn't really be harder than tracking packets and learning what they do.

heck if pirated servers for wow were functionnal before the actual game launched, this should be real easy to code.

Remember bnetd? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100828)

it will allow hackers to work on a bnet-to-lan emulator, which shouldn't really be harder than tracking packets and learning what they do.

If "learning what they do" involves any sort of encryption, look for another lawsuit like Blizzard v. Jung.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (3, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100374)

When Star Craft was first released Most people had dialup Internet. LAN Parties popularity wasn't as much about people getting together Although it was a big benefit, But to Play without massive Lag... Today with most people having high speed internet Lag isn't an issue. So you can still have you "Lan" Party but you will need to connect to the Internet and back out... Really no big deal with wireless. But for the most case the need for LAN parties isn't really that big anymore.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (0, Offtopic)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100594)

But for the most case the need for LAN parties isn't really that big anymore.

I have NEEDS you insensitive clod!

Re:This beta should be...fun? (1)

Svpernova09 (978812) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100606)

Today with most people having high speed internet Lag isn't an issue.

Lag isn't an issue due to customers high speed internet? You should browse the World of Warcraft customer forums. Multiple Battlegroups (groups of realms/servers) are suffering from constant lag and it has *nothing* to do with the user's internet speed. Five years after release Blizzard still suffers from lag and "unexpected downtime". After 5 years of weekly/bi weekly maintenance, how much "unexpected" can there really be? Lets hope SC2 doesn't reach the WoW popularity or if it does, lets hope Blizzard has learned a lot more about infrastructure than when WoW launched. Yes, I am a wow nerd, I'm not mad bro.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (5, Informative)

bluesatin (1350681) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100826)

You're seriously comparing hosting that many live-action gaming servers with some match-making servers?

The game servers are hosted by the players, not Blizzard; only the match-making server will be hosted by Blizzard.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (3, Funny)

dbcad7 (771464) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100702)

Some people still get together and stress out their internet connection with multiple players.. Don't underestimate the fun of seeing people cry out in agony in real life.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100708)

It's still annoying as hell that the original one let you use one copy to install multiples, and play with them all on a LAN. Now we've gotta all have our own copies. Add on top of that the "expansions" that will eventually be "required" if someone has all 3, EVERYONE has to have all 3, and you end up being nothing more than a wallet to Blizzard.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (2, Insightful)

Omestes (471991) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101598)

Add on top of that the "expansions" that will eventually be "required" if someone has all 3, EVERYONE has to have all 3, and you end up being nothing more than a wallet to Blizzard.

According to Blizzard; no. The first game will only contain one campaign, the human one I think, but will contain full multi-player, including all the units and races from the next two expansions. Thus, if you are only interested in multi-player you can completely ignore the two other campaigns.

I somewhat trust Blizzard on this issue for two reasons. the first is that Blizzard doesn't want to piss of the Korean Cult of Competitive Starcraft. The second is that I don't think that Blizzard has completely succumbed to Activision yet. Though I do worry about the rise of boneheaded "microtransactions", but so far they have kept them from conveying an advantage, or becoming necessary to compete.

As for the LAN issue... I really don't get the stink. How many multi-player PC games even have a LAN option for multi-player anymore? Really, how hard is it to just connect to a match making server, set up a private room, and play from there? Hell, everyone can still be in the same room. I think the whole (uh-oh, I'm gonna get a "troll" mod, oh dear!) LAN thing is nothing but a bunch of silly nostalgic niggling, the inclusion, or lack of LAN play does absolutely nothing to add to or hurt the quality of a game.

The lack of "spawn" copies does sort of piss me off though, but not nearly enough to preclude me from coughing up the cash for SCII, and allowing it to suck up a huge portion of my life. And like it.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100746)

When Star Craft was first released Most people had dialup Internet. LAN Parties popularity wasn't as much about people getting together Although it was a big benefit, But to Play without massive Lag... Today with most people having high speed internet Lag isn't an issue. So you can still have you "Lan" Party but you will need to connect to the Internet and back out... Really no big deal with wireless. But for the most case the need for LAN parties isn't really that big anymore.

Depending on the platform, it can be quite annoying. The PS3 and Xbox360 adapt to whatever router you have and figure out how best to do multiplayer (though there are several configurations where multiplayer either isn't available, or limited to those who have more "open" connections).

PC games tend not to have such luxuries for whatever reason, and still insist on people opening and forwarding particular ports (usually just 2 or so, rather than the 16 or 32 a game used to have just a decade ago). Problem is, you can't really forward a port more than once. Do it especially wrong and only one person can play per IP address (and blah blah IPv6 will solve this - not if the ISP only routes one or two IPs out of the /48 or whatver you get to you).

Do the networking right, and you can have local LAN play, but also local LAN plus WAN play (with each WAN node possibly also having a few LAN players joining in).

And LAN parties do still happen - people get together to play the Wii, and people get together to battle together because it's much more fun to yell to the person you beat when he's in the same room than over a VoIP link. Or has the notion of "friends getting together" gotten passe?

Re:This beta should be...fun? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101604)

Problem is, you can't really forward a port more than once.

But you can forward different ports to different hosts.

(and blah blah IPv6 will solve this - not if the ISP only routes one or two IPs out of the /48 or whatver you get to you)

In areas with more than one ISP, IPv6 ISPs that route only a /128 will lose business to those that route a whole /48. Or are you claiming that an ISP will take the extra effort to segment its network such that it routes a /48 in areas with competition and a /128 in all other areas?

And LAN parties do still happen - people get together to play the Wii

Most of the time that's not a LAN party but single-screen multiplayer, the kind that's sorely lacking on PCs, even now that most HDTVs have a PC input.

What kind of wireless? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100932)

When Star Craft was first released Most people had dialup Internet.

When the first StarCraft was released, PC gamers used desktop PCs. Laptops are more common now than they were then, and web browsing over EDGE [wikipedia.org] can feel almost as slow as over dial-up. Besides, even for desktop PCs, high-speed cable and DSL coverage hasn't yet reached everywhere; the 0.25 Mbps DSL available where my mother lives is fairly slow.

Really no big deal with wireless.

Did you mean "wireless" as in 802.11-series WLAN with a cable or DSL uplink, or "wireless" as in EDGE, HSPA, or EVDO?

Re:This beta should be...fun? (1)

wickedskaman (1105337) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101272)

That's simply not true. What about when I travel by bus or plane where there is no Internet connection but my friend and I both have our laptops? What about when I was injured and hung out in the ski lodge playing LAN games with friends who were taking a breather? What if you are on vacation in a place where Internet access is too slow or simply not accessible like a hotel room or out in the desert 4-wheeling or staying in a cabin on vacation and you want to play some LAN Starcraft II before going to sleep? There are plenty of places where you would want this feature.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31101900)

Why are you randomly capitalizing things? I'm not a grammar nazi, but really dude, learn to communicate. It's StarCraft, not "Star Craft". You don't have to randomly capitalize words like "Most" or "Lag". Stop abusing ellipses.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31100700)

I'm sure the game might be fun. But given that Blizzard has ripped out local LAN play (which is part of what made the original great), and made it into 3 $60 games instead of a single game with all 3 campaigns... fuck them. I am not a wallet, I am a customer. I used to be a Blizzard fan, and I may get this game eventually when it hits the bargain bins. PC games are losing ground to consoles because the fucking game manufacturers keep trying to turn the PC into a console.

I'm with you, but I doubt this is going to hurt Blizzard. Given all the griping on Slashdot about the most recent Modern Warfare game, but having it still sell millions and millions of copies, it's clear that people like you and I that care about this sort of thing (LAN play, price) are a minuscule portion of the market.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (1, Insightful)

Vaphell (1489021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101024)

wasn't modern warfare 2 90% consoles, 10% pcs? Consoles never had dedicated servers and such, console players didn't miss something they never knew
PC games _should_ be different, but i don't hold my breath given the cluelessness of an average pc gamer. LAN is oldschool for 99% and only old people in korea use it. They severely underestimate risks of being under the 'benevolent' company's absolute control and without deeper thought they give away fair use rights and ownership in a true meaning of the word in the name of convenience, social bullshit and such. They are more numerous than people who see risks of 'always connected experience' so companies can do whatever they want to grab more power, unwashed masses will pay 60 bucks for less either way (3 times).

Re:This beta should be...fun? (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100860)

The original Starcraft had roughly 30 missions. The three individual games are going to have 26-30 missions apiece. The multiplayer and other features (scenario editor) will be the same regardless of which of the games you purchase.

There's also no set price on the games. EB Games lists their estimated pre-order price for the first game at $49.99, but who's to say that the other games will be similarly priced? Blizzard has generally been very fair with their pricing I've found.

If they say that each of the games are going to sell for $50-60, then you have something. But for now, no price has been announced yet.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31101620)

made it into 3 $60 games instead of a single game with all 3 campaigns

Citation Needed. They've never said anything on price of the games.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (1)

mwsw (1011777) | more than 4 years ago | (#31102076)

Why on earth do people continue to whine about releasing 3 games instead of a single game with 3 campaigns? If they sold it as one game and 2 expansions, nobody'd care. The First SC2 game will contain more missions than the original SC1 game (which included 3 campagins). You're getting just as much game for your buck.

Re:This beta should be...fun? (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 4 years ago | (#31099878)

It's a Blizzard game, ofcourse it'll be enjoyable. It's whether or not the Koreans yum it up and it becomes their new national sport that will be the true test of the game :D

Re:This beta should be...fun? (1)

FTWinston (1332785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31099936)

I imagine it would be difficult to make StarCraft 2 not be fun. And they certainly look to be putting in enough work that it has a reasonable chance of being more fun than the original. If for no other reason than including the (now obligatory) idle workers button :)

Failure of imagination (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100080)

I imagine it would be difficult to make StarCraft 2 not be fun.

It wouldn't be too difficult to make StarCraft 2 not fun: just add digital restrictions management.

  1. Require an Internet connection for single-player. This excludes players who game on a laptop with a laptop mouse and can't afford either A. 3.99 USD every time they want an hour of Wi-Fi or B. 1,439.76 USD plus tax for 24 months of mobile Internet access.
  2. Require a broadband connection for multiplayer even when all players are on the same subnet. This excludes players who live outside major cities and have to use dial-up, satellite, 2G mobile, or low-end DSL, even if they share the connection so that all players can see Battle.net.
  3. Require each player to buy a copy of the game. The first StarCraft had spawn installations, and a $50 game quickly becomes a $200 game when mom and dad have to buy a copy for each PC.

Re:Failure of imagination (3, Insightful)

FTWinston (1332785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100252)

I agree that those things all suck, but: 1. I would be suprised if they don't cave in and allow offline single player eventually (its the MP they want to control, after all). This doesn't affect me personally, so doesn't make the game less fun for me.

2. If they end up allowing local LAN games to connect directly over the LAN after initial battlenet authentication, then this problem is mitigated substantially - a sub-par connection would suffice for this. If they don't, then that sucks, but this will rarely affect me personally, so doesn't make the game much less fun for me.

3. How many games these days (excluding indies) allow spawning? Also given that WC3 didn't, I suspect that anyone expecting SC2 to allow spawning was setting up unreasonable expectations. Also, Brood War didn't allow spawning, and I suspect almost no one plays starcraft without Brood War these days (or in the last several years), except perhaps ultra-casually.

Besides, no DRM will last forever with enough people with a vested interest in breaking it. There'll be a SC2 equivalent of hamachi SC1 before too long (complete with fake battlenet authentication server), in all probability.

Spawn installation (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100452)

If they end up allowing local LAN games to connect directly over the LAN after initial battlenet authentication, then this problem is mitigated substantially

I seem to remember the last Slashdot story about SC2 [slashdot.org] mentioning that the new game would allow dedicated servers, possibly even servers run by Blizzard. I tried to click through for details, but it appears the site is down at the moment. If play on a dedicated server is optional, or if the computer running Internet Connection Sharing is also running the dedicated server, then fine.

How many games these days (excluding indies) allow spawning?

There are two ways to have multiple players on one copy of the game: split-screen and spawning. Split-screen obviously doesn't apply to modern RTS games. As for spawning, three out of the four games I still have for Nintendo DS allow it: Meteos, Mario Kart DS, and Tetris DS. True, Meteos and Mario Kart have reduced functionality when not all players have a Game Card, but it's still a good way to introduce new players and to get cost-conscious moms to buy a copy of an E, E10+, or T game.

Re:Failure of imagination (1)

ifrag (984323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100728)

Also, Brood War didn't allow spawning, and I suspect almost no one plays starcraft without Brood War these days (or in the last several years), except perhaps ultra-casually.

Brood War also didn't use a CD-Key, so if you had the means to emulate the disc the expansion was playable on battle.net.

Of course now this is a complete non-issue because Blizzard now offers a complete Starcraft with BroodWar installer from battle.net "2.0" (is that what it is?) after the user attaches their Starcraft CD key to the new account. The games also no longer require the disc to be in the drive assuming the correct MPQ's are copied over as well. So basically now an original Starcraft key is all that is required.

Re:Failure of imagination (1)

FTWinston (1332785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100792)

Brood War also didn't use a CD-Key, so if you had the means to emulate the disc the expansion was playable on battle.net.

But not at the same time as someone else using the same serial.

Of course now this is a complete non-issue because Blizzard now offers a complete Starcraft with BroodWar installer ... So basically now an original Starcraft key is all that is required.

The whole point of spawn copies was that you could play on battle.net at the same time as the person whose game you had spawned. Of course, you could only play in games created by them, but going by tepples's example, a family could all play original starcraft against each other either online or offline using a single CD key. They cannot do the same (online) using brood war, as you can't spawn that, and nor does it look like they'll be able to do the same with SC2.

Re:Failure of imagination (1)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101750)

You didn't even need that. Once that game was loaded you could remove the CD. All you had to do was a round-robin game start and pass the disc around.

Re:Failure of imagination (1)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100870)

WHile it's true that WC3 technically didin't have a spawn installation option, it really wasn't needed for local games. Even on the release version (years before the official No-CD patch), the game installed all its data files to the hard disk. The only time it checked for the CD was when you started the game, after which you could remove the CD and play all you wanted, even single-player. This emant that within one household, you only really needed on WC3 (and Frozen Throne) CD if you wanted to play on a LAN. Of course, you couldn't go on Battle.Net together (shared CD key) but it was fine for local games.

With the advent of the official no-CD patch, you didn't even need to do the whole load CD / start game / eject CD / hand to next person / repeat cycle anymore.

Re:Failure of imagination (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31100684)

I'm not a major PC games player, but when I do buy a game the first thing I do is check out gamecopyworld to get a crack to remove restrictions such as these and make the game usable.

Re:Failure of imagination (4, Insightful)

c.r.o.c.o (123083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100716)

I'll probably get modded down for writing this, but I'm more than certain that a short time after SC2 gets released there will be a pirated version that will circumvent all three of your points. When will companies learn that the only people affected by DRM are their paying customers and NOT those running pirated copies?

Re:Failure of imagination (2, Insightful)

Vaphell (1489021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101068)

cracked single player will be available from day 1, or even earlier - nobody in his right mind would dispute that.

reportedly there will be an option to play single player without logging in, but your achievements and such worthless bullshit won't be saved (it's kept online). Installation process will require battle.net though, which is stupid beyond recognition. How hard is to scrap the offending code? 1hr of hacker's effort?

Re:Failure of imagination (2, Funny)

brkello (642429) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101610)

Why in the heck do you think you would be modded down? That same thing is said in every single game article and it is modded up.

Re:Failure of imagination (1)

d34dluk3 (1659991) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100806)

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

Re:Failure of imagination (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101262)

Honestly, dont blame Blizz on that one, blame the dipshits who have "aquired" all their games under the table for the past 4 years.

For those who lurk the mob, aka SC2 forums... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31099790)

...betttaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Who cares? (5, Insightful)

AdmiralXyz (1378985) | more than 4 years ago | (#31099942)

This is Slashdot. We should be griping about the DRM, or the removal of LAN play which is obviously intended to keep us as indentured servants to the corporate behemoth, not talking about trivial things like when the game is going to be released.

Re:Who cares? (1)

darkvizier (703808) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100064)

This is Slashdot. We should be griping about the DRM, or the removal of LAN play which is obviously intended to keep us as indentured servants to the corporate behemoth, not talking about trivial things like when the game is going to be released.

Fuck yeah! That's the spirit. Bring back the /. I know!

Re:Who cares? (2, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100460)

I'll sign up to the beta, play for 10 minutes, say "Where's the rest of the game? Where's the LAN play? What the hell is this DRM crap?" and not come back until it's sorted.

Re:Who cares? (4, Funny)

brkello (642429) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100536)

You obviously didn't read the other Blizzard article. That's all you are about. Complaining about stuff. Slashdot is the Tea Party movement of the Internet. A bunch of old people complaining about how things used to be with complete disregard to reality.

Re:Who cares? (1)

rk (6314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101028)

Reality has nothing whatsoever to do with it. I know that Blizzard doesn't give a damn if me and a few "old people complaining" don't buy their product because they've got millions of young people out there conveniently pre-programmed to shell out their money for whatever they care to spew out, whether it tastes like ambrosia or crap.

I still play Starcraft in LAN mode 3 to 4 times a week with my wife and/or son. If SC2 just authorizes to battle.net then falls back to LAN play, I'm fine with that. If SC2 makes me route packets for the game to San Jose or Los Angeles or wherever to play with someone whose computer is 30 centimeters from mine, it's a non-starter. The internet is still not as reliable as my home LAN (100% uptime!)

I'm not trying to punish Blizzard by not buying it. But I don't spend money on things I don't want or need, and RTS games that don't allow me to play games with the people I love without having their server in the sky's approval is among them. And no, we don't pirate games. In fact I probably own twice as many SC licenses as I actually need for the number of full copies that run here.

Re:Who cares? (3, Insightful)

brkello (642429) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101504)

That's fine. But here is my point. You have no clue how it will be implemented. It may just require you to authenticate and then all traffic will be routed locally. My Internet is out maybe 1 or 2 times a year and usually is just a router restart. If this is a big deal, then you can't buy any multi-player game.

But instead of ANYONE here waiting to see how anything is done, they complain and already get their excuses in line to pirate the game.

No one here is talking about how it is cool you can just enter in a key to the new battle.net for your games and can download them - Mac or PC. No one is talking about how excited they are to finally get the next part of the story. You guys all are crying about LAN play and being online.

There has to be others out there that are just excited to play the game. I already know all your ideologies. It is hammered in almost every single post in every single article. You hate DRM. I got it. Don't buy any game because they will all have DRM. This is reality. All consoles are a form of DRM. This is a reality. These games will all sell despite your ideologies.

No one on here can just be excited for a game release? Nope, too much to ask. You all have the childish mentality that it is cool to bash everything.

Honestly, I don't care about your heart-breaking story of being unable to play with people you love. You know why? Because it is all made up. The game isn't out, you have no idea if what you are saying is true, but instead of just de-clenching you have already gone in to outrage mode.

I have been in this community for so many years. I loved Slashdot. But I think I have just outgrown it. You guys can't talk about an article. You can only karma whore by repeating the same ideology over and over again. I honestly challenge everyone here to just look at the comments modded up in every article. Pretty much every post modded up should be redundant. It has nothing to do with the article, and everything to do with "OMG DRM. OMG LAN. OMG BNETD." Yes, we all know all those things already. You will get modded up but you have contributed nothing.

And really, this isn't you...I am sure you are a nice person. I am just tired of the ideology, it doesn't have to be this way. Everything is spun Libertarian here and exaggerated so that it becomes worthless.

The frustrating thing is I know there are a lot of Slashdotters out there just like me. It is just we are the vocal minority. I feel like Slashdot has been stolen away by people who care more about shoving views down my throat than by technology.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Vaphell (1489021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101094)

sad thing is that in both cases (games and politics/economy) being cool, hip and 'progressive' will end in the same way - with a total disaster.

Re:Who cares? (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101512)

I didn't know Bush was cool, hip, and progressive. Congratulations, most ignorant post I have read in weeks.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31101106)

Oh yuk fu!! He was trying to be funny. The tea party movement and slashdot have about as much in common as apples and oranges. I don't agree with everything they're on about, but at least they don't just bend over and take it like the majority of Amerikans. BTW how's BO working out for ya, seems to me so far he stinks.

Re:Who cares? (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100830)

You forgot the part about them taking one game and splitting it into 3 games so they can charge me 3x more..

Obligatory release date question (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31099972)

I know how these questions usually play out, but I'm asking just in case someone with a clue cares to comment.

Do we have any idea of the time frame in which to expect the first installment of SC2 to be released?

Re:Obligatory release date question (2, Informative)

gmthor (1150907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100858)

This is Blizzard....
It's done when it's done. If the balance appears to suck during the beta, then we might even wait another year.

Re:Obligatory release date question (1)

gottebag (878214) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101332)

soon

Ambiguity (1)

logback (1732354) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100010)

The 6th grader in me is excited after watching the "battle reports", and me now says "why should I even care?". I feel I've been betrayed by Blizzard spending all their efforts on the mediocre title that is WoW. This should of happened 8 years ago Blizzard! gg assholes

Re:Ambiguity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31101786)

Different development teams are working on WoW and SC2. Not working on WoW would not make SC2 come any faster. The existence of WoW means that SC2's team gets all the money they need and aren't pressured to rush the game out the door. gg moron.

A disturbance in the force... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31100062)

...the feeling of millions of South Koreans all creaming their jeans.

DIABLO!?!?!?! (0, Redundant)

alta (1263) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100104)

Yeah, I enjoyed starcraft. It was fun, yes... I could kick my coworkers asses. Blah Blah...

But I preferred diablo. So where's Diablo 3? Wasn't it announced first? Wasn't it started first? Anyone got sales numbers on their games? I guess they expect to make more $$ out of Starcraft, but I can't wait for D3.

Re:DIABLO!?!?!?! (1)

alta (1263) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100138)

Found my own answer, if vgchartz.com is correct.

Starcraft 1 sales 12million.
Diablo2 sales 5million.

Guess I'm just going to have to wait.

Re:DIABLO!?!?!?! (4, Funny)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100624)

Found my own answer, if vgchartz.com is correct.

Starcraft 1 sales 12million. Diablo2 sales 5million.

Guess I'm just going to have to wait.

That, and they're still negotiating a new contract with the Devil.

Re:DIABLO!?!?!?! (1)

BoredAtWorkWhatElse (936972) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100532)

But I preferred diablo. So where's Diablo 3? Wasn't it announced first? Wasn't it started first?.

Nope, Starcraft 2 was announced in 2007 and Diablo 3 in 2008.

Re:DIABLO!?!?!?! (1)

Vaphell (1489021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101156)

2011 is being optimistic imho, they still haven't announced 5th class (barbarian, wizard, witch doctor, monk, ...? )
given that sc2 was in a beta ready state 1 year ago (but they fucked up with battle.net and had to wait) i wouldn't count on d3 being released soon. As you see they have all the time in the world. Corporations are forever, you are not :)

if you want to see how things look and work, goto official website and youtube for gameplay clips from blizzcons and gaming expos.

Re:DIABLO!?!?!?! (1)

TJamieson (218336) | more than 4 years ago | (#31102068)

Maybe you would enjoy Torchlight? It's made by a bunch of former Blizzard folks, and is a very good Diablo clone. It doesn't have the same dark feel; it's slightly more cartoony, but still good. Definitely a good stop-gap until Diablo3.

SC2 = Star Control II (5, Informative)

Jon Abbott (723) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100202)

As much as I enjoyed StarCraft, the acronym "SC2" will always be reserved for Star Control II [wikipedia.org] in my mind.

Re:SC2 = Star Control II (2)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100698)

I'm a little too young to remember SC2, but I see from the wikipedia page that it's GPL. Awesome.

Re:SC2 = Star Control II (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31100862)

A more recent SC2 is Supreme Commander 2

Re:SC2 = Star Control II (1)

space_jake (687452) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101494)

SupCom 2

Re:SC2 = Star Control II (3, Insightful)

ifrag (984323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101002)

Well, how about changing it to UQM for Star Control 2 (The Ur-Quan Masters). Isn't that what the open source port uses?

It's really too bad there has not been any real successor to Star Control 2 though, great game, and the dialogue is absolutely hilarious. I still use quotes from that game.

Abbreviations change (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101712)

Do you complain about your fond memories of these too?
  • IBM Personal System/2 or Phantasy Star II (not PlayStation 2)
  • Program Segment Prefix or Paint Shop Pro (not PlayStation Portable)
  • Shining Force II (not Street Fighter II)
  • New Super Mario Bros. (not the Nigga Stole My Bike cutscene in Punch-Out!!)

too late? (5, Funny)

northernfrights (1653323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100226)

"If you've got a Battle.net account, it's probably not too late to opt-in for upcoming Blizzard beta tests." Well, ok... NOW it probably is...

LAN Play (1)

MrTripps (1306469) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100402)

Actually they will have LAN play... ...but it runs on IPX.

Looking Forward More to the Other SC2 (4, Funny)

Maltheus (248271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31100852)

Although I'm dreading the "simplification" of the economy, I'm much more looking forward to Supreme Commander 2. The AI might have sucked in the first one, but the strategic zoom and infinite queuing of tasks has added more to the genre IMO, than anything the original starcraft ever did. Not to mention the scope.

Still, as an RTS junkie, I'll be interested in seeing what the new Starcraft will offer. Hopefully they don't continue the unfortunate RTS trend of focusing more on offense, to the exclusive of defense and the intricacies of building up an economy.

Oh who am I kidding? I hope they both suck. I need them to suck. RTSes are as bad as any drug out there. Maybe worse. At least you can do other things while high on drugs. You can't do anything else while wasting your time on an RTS. Except perhaps, drugs....hmmm.

Re:Looking Forward More to the Other SC2 (2, Insightful)

renrutal (872592) | more than 4 years ago | (#31101052)

Oh god, a dozen years later, the conflict between Total Annihilation and StarCraft will be reborn.

Hell yeah!

Now to go Mac... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31101346)

Starcraft II is coming for Mac. Now I can switch to Mac and never go back.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?