×

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 Closed Beta Begins

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the rush-starts-now dept.

Real Time Strategy (Games) 268

Blizzard announced today that the multiplayer beta test for StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty is now underway. The client downloader is available through Battle.net for people who have received invites, and the system requirements have been posted as well. A list of known issues is up on the official forums. StarCraft II and the revamped Battle.net are planned for release "in the first half of 2010."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

268 comments

Been so long (2)

Evelas (1531407) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176652)

But wasn't Diablo 3 announced first? Where is that beta?

Re:Been so long (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176736)

It was at Blizzcon. I believe they gathered enough info there to do more work, and will release that beta when all the classes are finished.

Moar liek BlizCOON 2k10. Vivendi sux donkyballs. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31177710)

Blizzard has really let itself go in not speaking-up for all the independent teams that already made 'warez 3-times better than Blizzard could pump-out under Vivendi. Closed-soarce development companies like Blizzard are obsolete in that regard, because the people around the world are just more skilled than what could evar be hired to make such a commercial push.

Even all the news on payed-for private Television is just so Nanny-state and weeaks behind Truther and Patriot Movement companies like Prison Planet, American Voice Radio, and World Wide First Amendment Radio.

Who could possibly live in such a world where you are force-fed the "free choice" on shelves you or I can't compete upon until Tribute is payed? United States of America fails just like it has ever since Civil War.

48 united States of America stopped after War of 1812, and hasn't been same since. Get the United States out of America. Land-stealing honkies and Aztecs are ruining Turtle Island.

Re:Moar liek BlizCOON 2k10. Vivendi sux donkyballs (4, Funny)

oatworm (969674) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177924)

Ladies and gentlemen, this is why you don't do mescaline.

Re:Been so long (5, Informative)

Conchobair (1648793) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176854)

Nope. Announced Dates:
StarCraft II - May 19, 2007
Diablo 3 - June 28, 2008

Although, it would not be inconceivable for Blizzard to have done that. They are all about taking as much time as it takes to get things done and have never shied away from pushing a title or patch back in order to ensure it was as polished as possible. This is why all of their games kick ass and kill Koreans imo. They go for quality over cutting content for a early release (KOTR2) or a pretty release date (Hellgate).

Re:Been so long (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177018)

Taking as much time as it takes to get things done eh? Where did I hear that before... Oh I remember 3DRealms. Well Blizzard is not getting bankrupt anytime soon since they have the WoW cash cow, but they are known for dropping releases on occasion. Remember Starcraft: Ghost? Or what about Blackthorne?

Was it that hard to release a Starcraft version based on the Warcraft III engine a couple of years afterwards? Why did they have to make a new engine? The mind boggles.

Re:Been so long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31178772)

You probably also heard this from every other game Blizzard has ever released...

Re:Been so long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31178780)

According to what i have read, this engine is waaaaay better than warcraft 3's, that doesn't mean that one is bad, it actually rocks in my opinion, so i'm anxiously waiting for starcraft ii =D

Mac (5, Informative)

Chris Lawrence (1733598) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176688)

No Mac version yet, unfortunately. Both Mac and PC versions are going to be released together on the same media, but no word yet if Mac users will get to play with the beta.

Re:Mac (1, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176830)

I don't think that's really their priority just yet, but to test everything else in the game. Just get to PC if you want to play games like everyone else.

Re:Mac (5, Informative)

verbalcontract (909922) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176922)

According to the beta FAQ, the Mac version is coming:

Will there be a Mac version of the beta client?
We plan to release a Mac version of the beta client at some point during the beta test period. We’ll have further details to share as the beta test progresses.

via the beta FAQ [battle.net].

Re:Mac (1)

Chris Lawrence (1733598) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177064)

Excellent news! I've been registered for the beta for a long time (along with my system info), so I hope they send me an invite when the Mac version is ready.

Lost my interest (4, Interesting)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176728)

When they declared it would be sold as three different packs, one per race. While they do have a history of expansion packs, it's never been 1 with 2 more like this, nor planned this far in advanced to break it up and sell the parts.

Re:Lost my interest (5, Insightful)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176846)

It seems a little odd to be upset that they are more upfront about their plans for expansion packs and the content that will be in them. Each race will still be playable in multiplayer. There is no indication that the SCII won't have as much single player content as the original SC, albeit you'll only be able to play one races campaign.

I'd much rather wait and see more details on what it entails before passing judgement.

Re:Lost my interest (5, Informative)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177488)

I'm not upset that they're being up front about it, I'm upset that they're doing it at all.

See, instead of selling me "Starcraft II", they're selling me "Starcraft II, Terran Campaign" and pretending it's a full sequel to the original.

The reality is, to get the full sequel to the original, I'm going to have to buy three games.

Between that and the lack of real LAN play, they can count me as a lost customer.

Re:Lost my interest (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31177652)

And I am sure they will cry about losing you as a customer when millions of others are more than eager to depart with their hard earned cash.

Re:Lost my interest (4, Interesting)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178248)

It doesn't really matter whether Blizzard even notices. See, some of us have these things called "principles" and "values", and we stand up for them even if nobody else cares.

Blizzard wants to shove a LAN-less multiplayer game at us. That's fine, but I'm not going to buy it because I like LAN games.

It's also a demonstration on Blizzard's part that they no longer care about their own roots. Starcraft was so popular largely because of its LAN-friendly multiplayer games. I don't like it when companies abandon their roots.

Heck, Blizzard even provided spawn copies of Starcraft you could use for multiplayer games, so you could play with your friends even if they didn't have their own copies of the game. Do you think they'll be doing that with SC2? Of course not.

My decision to refuse to buy Starcraft 2 has as much to do with Blizzard's attitude as it has to do with the game itself.

Re:Lost my interest (1)

ScytheBlade1 (772156) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177744)

So if they announced SC2, SC3, and SC4, would you be equally as upset? Yes?

What if SC2 has as much content as the original Starcraft? And what if SC3 had as much content as the Expansion?

Guess what?

SC2 "Episode 1" has as much content as the original.

Re:Lost my interest (2, Insightful)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178288)

SC2 "Episode 1" has as much content as the original.

What does "as much content" mean?

The original let me install spawn copies of the game on multiple computers, so I could play multiplayer with my friends even if they didn't own the game. That's a lot of "content" that SC2 won't have, in my view.

If they had announced it as three full games, I'd still be irritated: it's the same effect.

SC2 doesn't have "as much content" (in the sense of missions) because it's only showing 1/3 of the storyline. We only get the Terran viewpoint.

That was the great thing about the original game. You got three races' stories as they related to a central storyline. We won't be getting that with SC2 until all three games are out.

So to get the same experience, in that sense at least, we have to buy three full games.

I'm sure SC2 will have some large number of missions that by mission count makes it "equal" to SC1. But we're still only getting 1/3 of the story, and that's very disappointing to me.

Re:Lost my interest (1)

ScytheBlade1 (772156) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178396)

Who says that's only 1/3 of the story? When/if they announce SC3 proper, that number changes to 1/4. If you count the original and the expansion, 1/6. The N64 version had extra content that was only on the N64, so 1/7. Then they'll announce the next expansion to SC3, and that will be 1/8.

Saying "I'm getting a fixed portion of the story, where that portion is less than one -- and I don't like paying to get the rest" is meaningless when we don't know what the denominator on that fraction is, when it stops, or if it will stop any time soon.

Re:Lost my interest (3, Interesting)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177806)

You have the game and two expansions, and each one has about the number of levels that the original game had. It's a different direction for the game,, but I don't think it's bad (as long as the expansions don't cost as much as the full game...and maybe if they publish a whopping 90 mission version at some point)

Re:Lost my interest (1)

Vaphell (1489021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178046)

still it's 30 terran missions and pretty much nothing else (there is some small protoss campaign-like thing). How many levels in a row can you play not to get bored with marines, siege tanks, and unlocking tech and playing mini-games of farming resources? unless you are a total shill, 3x10 > 1x30
There is a reason nobody tried to make a true RTS game with only 1 faction available at the release before.
Episodic nature is ok when all episodes offer full experience on their own, in case of sc2 we have to wait undefined amount of time to get another puzzle, and then wait again. Earlier games were complete.
It's a slippery slope from the gamer's perspective, companies will be justified to do even more of such dirty tricks, allowing them to offer less for more and more. In ten years people will be buying games for 60 bucks that offer 3 singleplayer missions and the other 95% of the game will be released in 10 expansions and 20 dlc's.

Re:Lost my interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31178820)

still it's 30 terran missions and pretty much nothing else (there is some small protoss campaign-like thing)

Either you forgot about skirmish mode and multiplayer, which is available with all races to all players regardless of which version(s) they buy. Multiplayer in particular is also where most of the serious replay value lies. Of course you didn't really "forget", you just lied.

unless you are a total shill, 3x10 > 1x30

You said "total shill" when you meant "someone with different tastes than me". This further proves you a liar.

Re:Lost my interest (1)

DudemanX (44606) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178842)

Dawn of War 2 works like this and is a great game. One massive(and really fun, especially with co-op) Space Marine campaign mode and a robust multiplayer mode with 4 distinct races. They're not even going to try and bother to make campaigns for the other races. The expansion for that is about to come out soon and it's still just more Space Marine campaign missions along with a new multiplayer race(Chaos Marines) and new multiplayer units for all races. Would it be nice to have an Ork campaign too? Sure, but a lack thereof doesn't make the large Space Marine campaign and robust multiplayer any less of a full game.

Re:Lost my interest (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177922)

I actually think the splitting of the campaigns is a good thing as it enables them to develop the story further and provide more content. I do however agree with the LAN issue - it seems most games I am interested in these days doesn't have a reasonable way of playing offline LAN games.

Re:Lost my interest (3, Informative)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178152)

I was about to ask why I got modded Troll, and then I realized that it was probably just someone modding me "-1 Disagree".

Note to moderators: You may like Starcraft 2. Heck, I'm sure I would like Starcraft 2. But I'm willing to forgo its potential awesomeness, because Blizzard has made some choices with which I strongly disagree. This is called "voting with your wallet", and I am in no way saying you're wrong for buying the game; I'm simply saying I'm upset about it. This isn't trolling, it's simply an explanation of why I won't be buying the game.

Re:Lost my interest (1)

Starayo (989319) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178232)

Modded troll? They ARE doing that! It's disgusting!

I'm not buying it until I can get each at 1/3 the cost of a new game.

Re:Lost my interest (4, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176866)

Do we really have to go thru this in every StarCraft II story?

Why would you lose interest in the game because of that? Please tell me. They're separate stories and most likely priced as expansions too. And it's not like they made the 100% ready and are just keeping the two later expansion packs with them self now.

Re:Lost my interest (5, Insightful)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176984)

Why would you lose interest in the game because of that? Please tell me.

Because it's a bad for the industry as a whole. When a big player can suddenly decide to stop selling a full product and instead just sell it in parts with each part at full price, or near enough, is shows others that they can get away with this too. Its been shown with the downloadable content thats running rampant and wild to the point that it's being planned upon and worked on before the basic product is available, and being available on the games release date. Now instead of having a full game being sold we can buy something like RE5 and spend more money to open up the multi-player modes, or games like Sonic where you can pay to open up the harder difficulty mode. Refusing to buy and not just refusing but mentioning way is what helps. Or we can all look forward to buy every game a small sub-sets at full prices.

Re:Lost my interest (5, Insightful)

Nos. (179609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177062)

I remember seeing numbers posted here. The initial game will be a campaign for one race, approximately 40 missions. This was comparable (maybe even slightly more) than the original Starcraft. The expansions to SCII will each have another campaign for one of the races, with around 40 missions. This is more than BroodWar had. So, if instead, they released SCII with ~13 missions for each race, which is basically how the original was released, you'd be okay with that?

Seems like nitpicking to me.

Re:Lost my interest (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177824)

According to 1up [1up.com], Blizzard is promising between 26-30 missions per game. If so, that puts each game at 2/3 the size of SC1 (at least in terms of missions). But do you think they'll be charging 2/3 the price? Of course not. Do you have a reliable source where blizzard promises 40 missions per game?

The other potential issue I see is that once the second game comes out, anyone who plays multiplayer is going to have to buy the second game too if they want to keep playing multiplayer (as happened with SC1 and Brood War).

They've said they won't do that, that anyone with the first game will be able to play multiplayer with the other two, but unless they actually patch the first game with new units from the second and third games I see it as extremely unlikely, and I also see it as unlikely that they would release two more games without adding new units to the factions.

Re:Lost my interest (1)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177072)

Where have they said they aren't releasing a complete game at launch and where have the released their pricing scheme?

You are simply making assumptions.

Re:Lost my interest (2, Informative)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177512)

They're separate stories and most likely priced as expansions too.

They have given no indication the second and third games will be priced as expansions. In fact, given their claims about campaign lengths, they're indicating that they will be priced as full games, not as expansions.

Re:Lost my interest (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177902)

If they're priced as full games, I'll be a little miffed. I've got plenty of choice in games, so something like that *may* lose them my sale....but probably not. And I think that's the gamble they're going for. Blizzard puts out top-notch stuff. It's possible they're pushing for recognition of premium content with higher prices. Some people will be swept up in a wave of "OMG Starcraft!!" and that'll probably be enough to make the games massively successful, regardless of what price they come out as.

Re:Lost my interest (4, Interesting)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176914)

When they declared it would be sold as three different packs, one per race. While they do have a history of expansion packs, it's never been 1 with 2 more like this, nor planned this far in advanced to break it up and sell the parts.

Wouldn't be so bad of an idea if done intelligently. For games we really like, expansion packs are loved. Figuring full retail, that's $40 for the game (back in the day), $20 each for the expansions. You could end up spending $80 if you bought it all new, or you could get the bundle months later for $40. You paid for two games and the developer probably didn't have to expend as much effort on two expansions as with the full original game. Win win for all.

What gets to be bullshit is when the $60 game is chopped up and you're left paying the full freight for the original game plus the expansions.

What I always thought would be fair is something like this: the developer plans out the game with maybe six races total. Starcraft has a lot of Warhammer 40k similarities and just think of how many races you have in that setting, it's more than orks and humans and eldar. But we'll stick with Starcraft. You sell the game with three races. The development of additional races is proceeding alongside. Sell the game for full price and then release additional races with full campaigns as add-ons. Don't skimp on the details but charge a fair price. The customer knows he's getting another 20 hours of gameplay with the expansion, plus he can use the new race in multiplayer. Then after the game's been out for a while, all the add-ons can be bundled in a battlechest and the people who skipped it when it launched can catch up with the fun. The publisher makes more money which is an upside, the fan gets more game which is another upside.

Of course, this can be more complicated than I think. I thought the idea of episodic content for shooters was a good idea, sell the game in affordable, bite-sized serial format but the reality was less enjoyable. And the dick move usually is the one that gets made. So you buy a full game like Dragon Age and are getting propositioned for add-ons that were developed at the same time as the original game and should have been included in the first place. That's not like Lord of the Rings where they're releasing three movies at once, always planned on doing so and you feel you're getting your money's worth, this is more like Kill Bill where it was supposed to be one movie and they just released it as two to make more money and planned on soaking the fans by releasing multiple versions on DVD.

Re:Lost my interest (1)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177054)

this is more like Kill Bill where it was supposed to be one movie and they just released it as two to make more money and planned on soaking the fans by releasing multiple versions on DVD.

You mean like Grindhouse that was both movies in theater but then had to be sold as 2 different movies when it went to DVD just to make more money (the money they were hoping to make during the theater run but didn't get). Strangely, in both movies it was centered with movies by Quentin Tarantino.

Re:Lost my interest (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177398)

You mean like Grindhouse that was both movies in theater but then had to be sold as 2 different movies when it went to DVD just to make more money (the money they were hoping to make during the theater run but didn't get). Strangely, in both movies it was centered with movies by Quentin Tarantino.

Well, I'd be willing to pay money not to own a copy of Death Proof. If I were ever going to buy the Aliens movies, I'd want to pay to get the first two unbundled from the rest of the crappy ones. :)

But yeah, those are dick moves. This isn't the publisher saying hear me out, this is going to be good for all of us and winning you over. This is the publisher pissing down your neck and not even making that much of an effort to convince you it's rain.

From my perspective I think "Hey, we can release more expansions, give the developers a more consistent revenue stream and enhance the quality of the experience for players." But the publisher's perspective is "Let's soak these fans for as much as possible, nickel and dime them for shit that should have already been in the original game, and still not pay the developer any more than they would have gotten off of doing things the old way!" The publisher approach would be taking a look at the kind of money spent on D&D materials and they'd just see bullshit dollar signs in their eyes.

From the looks of things, Rockstar did a decent job with the GTAIV expansions. You've got the core game, then you have the expansions that deliver more content and interconnecting stories to the existing game.

Kill William, part 1 & 2 (1)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178082)

this is more like Kill Bill where it was supposed to be one movie and they just released it as two to make more money and planned on soaking the fans by releasing multiple versions on DVD.

I only paid about $24 combined for KB 1&2, so I don't know how they were 'soaking' the fans by releasing them separately. That is about the same price as you would pay for a two disk, 4+ hour feature anyway.

Re:Lost my interest (3, Insightful)

verbalcontract (909922) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177042)

I don't understand knocking Blizzard for splitting this into three releases. There's going to be 26 to 30 missions in the first Terran-only single-player campaign (source [starcraft2.com]), which would put it on par with the first Starcraft. Presumably, there will be 26-30 missions in each of the following stories, plus additional units (as Blizzard has done whenever they've released an expansion to the game). Blizzard has never developed and released a half-baked expansion in its entire history; the closest thing might be Diablo: Hellfire, which was developed by an outside company, and I don't know if it was priced appropriately on release.

So what's the hate for, beyond the usual fishing for things to hate? If you really don't think it's going to be good value to you, wait until it goes on sale, or just don't buy the game. Chess is freely available to all.

Re:Lost my interest (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177508)

Hellfire was developed by Sierra, and priced at 29.00, iirc. (What a crappy expansion that was. No surprise they never farmed out to a 3rd party again).

I can't wait to... (3, Funny)

Supurcell (834022) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176754)

I can't wait to fire it up.

Re:I can't wait to... (1)

metatheism (1747884) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177026)

Me neither, and I'm waiting on you!

Re:I can't wait to... (1)

clintonmonk (1411953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177234)

Well, I'm proceedin'.

Thats nice... But. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31176856)

They already told me i'll have to buy the same game 3 times if i want all of it.

And there wont be any LAN play allowed.

And i'm guessing it'll be chock full of the latest greatest craptastic DRM and copy protection.

So i already decided to pirate it. Far better product. Far lower cost.

Show my support? no... fuck them.. i showed my support often and totally for starcraft 1. And what did that get me? Yeah... The above bullcrap.

Yo ho ho.. Its the pirates life for me!

FOR THE HORDE! (1)

rehtonAesoohC (954490) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176862)

Oh wait, wrong game...

Entaro Tassadar! Ahh yeah that's the right game. Does anyone know if the closed beta is under a restrictive NDA?

Also, knowing Blizzard's excessive tinkering, and the fact that we are already almost halfway through the first half (50% of 50%) of 2010, I find it highly unlikely that the game will be released "in the first half of 2010."

Re:FOR THE HORDE! (1)

Aggrajag (716041) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177156)

Quote from the forums

We're pleased to announce that we have decided to lift the confidential nature of the StarCraft: II Beta Test. This means that beta testers are free to show and discuss the game with your friends, as well as take screenshots, record gameplay videos, etc. So feel free to share that amazing game you just played. Enjoy!

Incomplete StarCraft - LAN Play = NO PURCHASE (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31176880)

I can't believe people still give a damn about this game after all the bull they're trying to pull. Only one race in the story mode? No LAN play? More internet-required-use-our-new-online-service crap? Seriously? I mean, up until the news about this game and Diablo III being neutered, Blizzard was a great PC game dev. This is the point where people need to send a message, but I know pointing this out is about as effective as whizzing into the wind. It blows my mind how much disrespect and manipulation people are willing to put up with.

Re:Incomplete StarCraft - LAN Play = NO PURCHASE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31176972)

fuck off you dirty pirate

Re:Incomplete StarCraft - LAN Play = NO PURCHASE (1)

Kratisto (1080113) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177108)

They don't put up with it. Intrusive DRM causes people to skip games or pirate them. SCII is one of the few games that has enough hype to overcome this sort of thing.

Re:Incomplete StarCraft - LAN Play = NO PURCHASE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31178748)

Theres not that many people however that mind systems which requires a simple online verification. DRM that modifies your computer (most famed for this is Securom) causes uproars, but online checks generally don't. Even less so when the main draw for many people does not originate from its singleplayer content, but from its multiplayer.

  A select few, mostly those without stable internet - naturally do, but they are an extremely small minority nowadays.

Re:Incomplete StarCraft - LAN Play = NO PURCHASE (3, Insightful)

chrysrobyn (106763) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177170)

The message I'm going to send to Blizzard is also quite simple.

Support my Mac (yet again) with another great game (yet again) and I'll buy it on release day (yet again). If my internet is down, I don't even want to touch my computer, so that's no big deal for me. I logged hundreds if not thousands of hours playing the original Starcraft with the woman who ended up being my wife.

With the number of people who will want to play in a LAN, you know the majority of the traffic isn't going to be routed through B.N servers where they'll have to pay for the bandwidth. Most networked apps in this NAT age use a variety of methods to try to learn a real IP address to connect to each other. The first is always "self-reported IP". So, SC2 would hypothetically connect to B.N, authenticate, and then keep 100% of traffic on the LAN, reporting the results of the play to the servers. That way, if some college kid spends the whole year playing on his lan, and then goes home to play against me on B.N, he's got some ladder rank that's going to put him about where he belongs (which is honestly a completely different realm than 33 year old me).

Re:Incomplete StarCraft - LAN Play = NO PURCHASE (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177432)

1 Race per game - episodic like content - helps pace storylines (No one complains that a season of 24 takes 24 episodes, do they?)

As for the lack of LAN play - this kind of thing doesn't stop World of Warcraft from functioning. Lets face it, If you've got 11 million guaranteed buyers based on the fact that they meet the requirements and want to play your game - you'd implement it the same way Blizzard is to maximize sales.

Re:Incomplete StarCraft - LAN Play = NO PURCHASE (1)

Vaphell (1489021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178174)

it mainly helps to 'encourage' customers to fill company coffers more than they should.
TV series are not to be set as an example but unfortunately this is what will happen - games will be 10% substance and 90% of filler crap to keep players occupied until some new idea comes up.

and comparing sc2 where one player hosts the map to a fullblown mmog with a massive amount of data to serve doesn't make much sense. Battle.net is just another point of possible failure you don't really need to play on lan. Also you overestimate numbers of wow-to-sc2 converts. WoW has much more appeal for your average casual player than sc2 that will be completely dominated by exSc1/Wc3 players and RTS as a genre has much smaller base than countless FPShooters or even hack and slash Diablo clones.

Re:Incomplete StarCraft - LAN Play = NO PURCHASE (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178292)

I don't think I'm overestimating at all. 11 Million WoW subscribers means probably 5 million SC2 purchasers right off the bat. Than the SC1 avids and WC3 players going in for SC2, and the professionals in Korea and such... 11 Million is not an unreasonable amount to expect.

disclaimer bigger than the article (3, Informative)

RichMan (8097) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176890)

Nice the disclaimer at the end is bigger than the article.

Article == 338 words
Identifier == 88 words
Disclaimer == 393 words

So if nothing happens in the end they are coverd.

Two questions.... (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176992)

....that I have yet to get a firm answer on:

Will SC2 support true LAN play, or just that pseudo-LAN thing where one have to 'authenticate' first?

Will SC2 support multi-core systems? I got this fancy quad-core system and core 1 thru 3 get pissed when core 0 is being pegged.

Re:Two questions.... (1, Informative)

TikiTDO (759782) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177088)

1. No, this has been answered plenty of times. Blizzard obviously has no interest in catering to the small percentage of the population that wants to play multiplayer with no internet connection.

2. I would imagine that the answer is yes, though that is just my speculation. This game has been in development for a while, with what is sure to be quite an impressive team. Further, even the relatively resource light WoW supports multi-core execution. Blizzard would have to try quite hard to fail this criteria.

small percentage of the population that wants to p (2, Insightful)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177256)

small percentage of the population that wants to play multiplayer with no internet connection?

how about tournament play????

the last thing that you need is some kind of a internet hiccup to mess up a tournament.

Re:Two questions.... (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177374)

Blizzard obviously has no interest in catering to the small percentage of the population that wants to play multiplayer with no internet connection.

Blizzard apparently only wants to cater to the population that's willing to bend over and ask "mother may I" each time they boot up. I'm not too worried though, this too shall be cracked. 20 years from now, I'll still be able to play the "good old stuff" with my friends thanks to crackers.

Define "small percentage"? (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177546)

An April 2009 survey by the Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project shows 63% of American homes have broadband Internet access. So those remaining 37% (tens of millions of people) are politely asked to not buy this game I guess. Digital divide FTW!

Re:Define "small percentage"? (2, Insightful)

Galestar (1473827) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178150)

And a Feb 2010 survey made up by yours truly says that those 37% are exactly the same people who would never {head of/buy/give two shits about} Starcraft 2 even if they did have internet.

Re:Two questions.... (1, Troll)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177926)

Blizzard obviously has no interest in catering to the small percentage of the population that wants to play multiplayer with no internet connection.

They've obviously also not done any market research on how big that percentage of the population might be, and I doubt you have either.

Out of me and the dozen friends that play Starcraft, exactly zero of us play on Battle.net if we don't have to. During high school, all of us regularly played without access to an internet connection - one still regularly gets a group together in a local church gymnasium to play Starcraft LAN games, and there's definitely no internet access there. I guess they'll stick with the original even after the sequel comes out, because they won't be able to play the sequel together.

The "small percentage" is a lot larger than you think it is. Starcraft II will not be nearly as popular if it prevents playing multiplayer without internet access.

Re:Two questions.... (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178706)

Blizzard obviously has no interest in catering to the small percentage of the population that wants to play multiplayer with no internet connection

The percentage of the population that wants to be able play multiplayer with no internet connection is roughly equivalent to the percentage of the population who has had an internet outage. That is, just about everyone.

Re:Two questions.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31177270)

>Will SC2 support true LAN play, or just that pseudo-LAN thing where one have to 'authenticate' first?

It's been said before, that all the emphasis is with the online experience.. Since it's P2P instead of client-server, you will get the same performance on a LAN as you normally would with the added benefit of still being available to your online friends via Battle.net. Even if all players are on a LAN, you can still communicate with all your battle.net buddies (whether on your LAN or not) while a game is in progress.

>Will SC2 support multi-core systems?
Yes. It's been said before indirectly, not sure where, but the physics engine in SC2 is run on a separate thread so you're looking at using at least 2 cores..

Re:Two questions.... (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177616)

That's too bad. Not for me...I have a great 50Mb connection...but for just about anyone living in a rural area or who wants to take their laptops camping and have an ad-hoc lan party in the middle of nowhere.

Oblig Alien Over... (5, Funny)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177120)

I for one welcome our zerg..."You need more Overlords".

Re:Oblig Alien Over... (4, Funny)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177310)

Really? Do you realize how many overlords slashdot has by this point?

Does not matter (2, Funny)

uberjoe (726765) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178412)

Spawn more overlords.

Re:Does not matter (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178860)

Spawn more overlords.

Ahhhh, I think you're right. I forgot the exact terming. It's been too long since my last starcraft fix. (got into the large battles of supreme commander)

Can anyone post system requirements? (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177136)

Can anyone post system requirements for those of us unable to reach particular sites?

System requirements (2, Informative)

Paradigm_Complex (968558) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177258)

According to Shacknews [shacknews.com] the minimum system requirements are as follows:

PC Minimum Requirements:

* Windows XP SP3/Vista SP1/Windows 7
* 2.2 Ghz Pentium IV or equivalent AMD Athlon processor
* 1 GB system RAM/1.5 GB for Vista and Windows 7
* 128 MB NVidia GeForce 6600 GT/ATI Radeon 9800 PRO video card
* 1024x768 minimum display resolution
* 4 GB free hard space (Beta)
* Broadband connection

Nice to know my trusty old 3.0Ghz P4 with 1GB RAM and an NVidia GeForce 6800GT is still available for friends who can't bring their box to Starcraft LANs! Well, assuming Blizzard allows it.

Re:Can anyone post system requirements? (1)

daveywest (937112) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177286)

The minimum system requirements for the Starcraft II Beta are as follows:

PC Minimum Requirements:
Windows XP SP3/Vista SP1/Windows 7
2.2 Ghz Pentium IV or equivalent AMD Athlon processor
1 GB system RAM/1.5 GB for Vista and Windows 7
128 MB NVidia GeForce 6600 GT/ATI Radeon 9800 PRO video card
1024x768 minimum display resolution
4 GB free hard space (Beta)
Broadband connection

*Note* the final requirements for Starcraft II have not yet been determined. Due to ongoing development the minimum requirements listed above are subject to change at any time. During this phase a Mac version will NOT be available, please check back.

Re:Can anyone post system requirements? (1, Redundant)

Rewind (138843) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177330)

Can anyone post system requirements for those of us unable to reach particular sites?

sure:
PC Minimum Requirements:
Windows XP SP3/Vista SP1/Windows 7
2.2 Ghz Pentium IV or equivalent AMD Athlon processor
1 GB system RAM/1.5 GB for Vista and Windows 7
128 MB NVidia GeForce 6600 GT/ATI Radeon 9800 PRO video card
1024x768 minimum display resolution
4 GB free hard space
Broadband connection

Re:Can anyone post system requirements? (0, Redundant)

flabordec (984984) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177446)

From Blizzard's page: [blizzard.com]

PC Minimum Requirements:

  • Windows XP SP3/Vista SP1/Windows 7
  • 2.2 Ghz Pentium IV or equivalent AMD Athlon processor
  • 1 GB system RAM/1.5 GB for Vista and Windows 7
  • 128 MB NVidia GeForce 6600 GT/ATI Radeon 9800 PRO video card
  • 1024×768 minimum display resolution
  • 4 GB free hard space (Beta)
  • Broadband connection

Submitting system specs for beta via Wine (2, Informative)

CyDharttha (939997) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177320)

In order to sign up for possible beta access, you have to download a program that sends your system specs to your battle.net account. The system test application for Windows worked without issue in Wine, allowing me to upload my specs and be considered for beta access.

System Requirements, Screenshots, etc... (3, Informative)

Shohat (959481) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177420)

Howdy. Bit self-promotional... but.. Read my blog. It is the best StarCraft Blog on the web.
I am in the beta, all the info that was published this month (including the massive SC2 Beta FAQ) is there, system requirements, screenshots, and will soon be posting replays/videos. Currently 500 users online, so I can handle bit of slashdotting :)
Cheers.

But... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31177600)

... does it run on Linux? D:

How long until DotS (Defense of the Stars) Mod? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31177684)

My favorite mod for WC3 is DotA. I hope something similar is created for SC2.

Battle.net required? No Thanks (3, Insightful)

ubergeek65536 (862868) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177752)

Why do I need to join battle.net for a game I only want to play against the computer. Playing against people online gets very tiring. It's hard to find anyone online that doesn't act like a spoiled six year old. Just shut up and play.

Re:Battle.net required? No Thanks (1)

paziek (1329929) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178568)

You can always ignore and play and in the end you could just kick his ass and laugh, since often weak dogs bark.
Playing against NPC seems to be rather boring to me and can last for 24 hours tops, after that its tiring.

No fun in europe (1)

Picardo85 (1408929) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177880)

And as usual we are lagging behind in europe. I wonder why it's so hard to have releases in europe and the US at the same time.That doesn't just go for the games but movies and series aswell.

Re:No fun in europe (1)

Shohat (959481) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177940)

Hello
It is currently available in Europe. For at least one person in Spain, fore sure :)

At least slashdot users... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31178496)

At least Slashdot users won't have to spawn any more Overlords. We already have plenty.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...