Starcraft II, 3 seperate games??

[Meresgi]

What I don't understand is why didn't they delay SC until they had the BW content, and then release that at the same price. Or Warcraft1-3. Or Diablo II. Or WoW. In fact, why don't they never release a game until they decide the series is done so that we dont have to waste multiple sums of money on a game with the same things in it. What a greedy company.

With an MMO they never really want the game TO end, it's a money maker for them so they want it to go on and on, expansions are a part of that money making machine.

[archibaldcrane]

All "3" of these "games" are based on the same shit - same engine, same graphics, same same same. Comparing them to sequels is the ultimate in cock-sucking fanboyism.



Any questions?

I bet you wish you could've given Blizzard $150 for Starcraft 1 also, just split into three parts, considering how willing you are to whore yourself out to them for this single installment.

[Cheerios]

All "3" of these "games" are based on the same shit - same engine, same graphics, same same same. Comparing them to sequels is the ultimate in cock-sucking fanboyism.



Any questions?

I bet you wish you could've given Blizzard $150 for Starcraft 1 also, just split into three parts, considering how willing you are to whore yourself out to them for this single installment.

I'm already paying 6k gold for a beta key, so why not!

[BRP]

In an alternate universe maybe you could have bought Starcraft 2 for me, you, and someone else. You seem to be so charitable with that money of yours.

[Shuvo]

It sucks how they are making us pay 3x but I'm just glad they didn't make it registration based. After the success with WoW Blizzard had to really draw a line between being maximizing profits and maintaining their image as the best, and I suppose this is not a bad compromise, as online play is unaffected.

So for the whiners just buy 1 and pirate the last 2, problem solved :D

[BRP]

I can't wait until Starcraft 2 isn't nearly as balanced as its predecessor and people will constantly lose because they "bought the wrong one."

[SchuldigGER]

honestly i spend way more then 150$ on SC1 copys by now because of ppl stealing cd-keys, cds breaking and scratches ....

[Nikko]

All "3" of these "games" are based on the same shit - same engine, same graphics, same same same. Comparing them to sequels is the ultimate in cock-sucking fanboyism.



Any questions?

I bet you wish you could've given Blizzard $150 for Starcraft 1 also, just split into three parts, considering how willing you are to whore yourself out to them for this single installment.

Lol... I guess you feel the same way about movie trilogies like lord of the rings, or series of books like harry potter. They should have been released in one 20,000 page book or 9 hour movie, so that we could just buy a single movie ticket.

They aren't breaking up a single game, they are adding aditional games. I guess it would be better to have it the same as SC and WC3, with 10 missions for each campaign. That way we could buy our one game without getting royally ripped off by paying proportionately more money for proportionatly more content.

As far as premature exhasperation goes, we dont even know the prices. The 2nd and 3rd games may cost less, who knows.

[Waef]

If each game is able to stand alone on it's own with multiplayer content, then I doubt the 2nd and 3rd ones would be any cheaper. It seems to me that every game is identical, you can play each race in each game, it's just the online storyline that's available only pertains to the particular one you bought. Maybe each game (including the "first") will cost slightly less than $50, though.

[izembo]

honestly i spend way more then 150$ on SC1 copys by now because of ppl stealing cd-keys, cds breaking and scratches ....

sc1 now runs without a cd ;p

[Kiarax]

I can't wait until Starcraft 2 isn't nearly as balanced as its predecessor and people will constantly lose because they "bought the wrong one."

Uh, they've already said that even if you just buy the Terran game you can play as all races in multiplayer. At most I'll imagine they'll just do minor bug/balance fixes and new maps for each release. I'm sure they want to cash in but they're not completely retarded enough to make it necessary to buy them all.

[Pikarya]

I'm kinda out of the loop, but is Final Fantasy 13 also shipping 3 different games/3 different storys? iirc Agito/Versus & plain 13?

[Kiarax]

I'm kinda out of the loop, but isint Final Fantasy 13 shipping 3 different games/3 different storys? iirc Agito/Versus & plain 13?

Agito is a PSP game. And 13 and Versus are completely different games. Completely different situation here.

[Demosthenes]

Step 1: buy one version
Step 2: Enjoy full multiplayer
Step 3: Pirate the rest.

[SchuldigGER]

sc1 now runs without a cd ;p

i know i recently started playing again and i think its really cool from blizzard and shows that they still care about the sc/wc3 community

i just wish they would have done that back in the days when i still played hardcore

[geno]

All "3" of these "games" are based on the same shit - same engine, same graphics, same same same. Comparing them to sequels is the ultimate in cock-sucking fanboyism.



Any questions?

I bet you wish you could've given Blizzard $150 for Starcraft 1 also, just split into three parts, considering how willing you are to whore yourself out to them for this single installment.

You are wrong. Starcraft and BW run on the same engine, and have the same weak graphics sprites. WC3 and TFT run on the same engine and have the same graphics. Here, lets even go one of the few other successful PC game companies: Valve. HL2 and Episode1/2 all have the same graphics and engine. You are just paying for more single player content.

I wouldn't have been willing to spend $150 on SC1 split into three. Number one, it was a decade ago and prices were different. Number 2, They would need to add SIXTY FUCKING MISSIONS for it to be the same idea. So they would need to triple the size of the game, not "split" it. You are absolutely right that you are just paying for more single-player content; but what is wrong with that? There is an incredible amount of precedent for the same thing. I bet you wouldn't have blinked an eye if the announcement yesterday was "SC2 will have 2 expansion packs!" instead of "SC2 will be a trilogy each with a different race campaign."

edit: By the way, I don't know how there is so much negative discussion about a topic Blizzard hasn't even covered yet; price. The only thing they mentioned was that each game could be bought as a standalone and played online. Its quite possible, and moreover likely that they will also offer a much cheaper upgrade type version to just get new single player content and I have no idea why so few people seem to think thats out of the question for Blizzard. Seriously, what release have they screwed up before (besides delays) that makes you so worried about this one?

[SchuldigGER]

You are wrong. Starcraft and BW run on the same engine, and have the same weak graphics sprites. WC3 and TFT run on the same engine and have the same graphics. Here, lets even go one of the few other successful PC game companies: Valve. HL2 and Episode1/2 all have the same graphics and engine. You are just paying for more single player content.

I wouldn't have been willing to spend $150 on SC1 split into three. Number one, it was a decade ago and prices were different. Number 2, They would need to add SIXTY FUCKING MISSIONS for it to be the same idea. So they would need to triple the size of the game, not "split" it. You are absolutely right that you are just paying for more single-player content; but what is wrong with that? There is an incredible amount of precedent for the same thing. I bet you wouldn't have blinked an eye if the announcement yesterday was "SC2 will have 2 expansion packs!" instead of "SC2 will be a trilogy each with a different race campaign."

edit: By the way, I don't know how there is so much negative discussion about a topic Blizzard hasn't even covered yet; price. The only thing they mentioned was that each game could be bought as a standalone and played online. Its quite possible, and moreover likely that they will also offer a much cheaper upgrade type version to just get new single player content and I have no idea why so few people seem to think thats out of the question for Blizzard. Seriously, what release have they screwed up before (besides delays) that makes you so worried about this one?

i couldnt agree more with this

[Pikarya]

But its okay to gossip like old women. Right?

[Maxxthepenguin]

Fuck you Blizzard. You just killed my favorite way to play RTSes. I normally play through the campaign mode first, largely because it gets me acquainted with the races. Getting to know them is much easier in single player campaigns. How the fuck did you not think of this, Blizz?

[Kaylia]

Fuck you Blizzard. You just killed my favorite way to play RTSes. I normally play through the campaign mode first, largely because it gets me acquainted with the races. Getting to know them is much easier in single player campaigns. How the fuck did you not think of this, Blizz?

They did, then they saw the possibility to make even more money.



And people who think 60 new missions make two new game are pushing it. The development cost is ridiculously low once the game engine is completed and beta tested. Unless there is 3h worth of awesome CG in each game, I'm not sure it's worth the price tag.