I have returned: StarCraft II

[Correction]

While it was nice of you to actually read the source I linked, you probably should have kept reading past where somebody linked that image ;p

And no, PC games don't cost that much: http://www.gamestop.com/browse/searc...atchallpartial

Buncha collectors editions, plus Activision and subsequently Ubisoft at $51-74.99.

Console games can only get away with it because the technology changes and developing for them requires different tools. PCs haven't changed.

If we're talking about AAA-space games, yes they do cost that much. Every PC game listed in that gamestop link shows up at 60 bucks, but maybe that's their online shop geolocating my ZIP code (Hollywood) and figuring I can pay more.

http://i44.tinypic.com/2e37rxk.png

And I really don't know how to respond to the 'console games can cost 60 bucks because of the tools used and PCs haven't changed.' That sounds like a complete ass-pull.

[geno]

I feel I must state, I actually didn't read the source you linked, I got the image from another thread I read yesterday, lol. And I pointed out in my post (though I edited it in a bit late) that it wasn't really priced at that.

Still, $60 is more than reasonable. I just hate people blaming Activision for everything they don't like about Blizzard, seems like a cop-out. I wish they had never merged so I could see you not complaining at all when they priced it at $60 anyways.

[geno]

Wait I just skimmed that thread you linked.. I didn't see anyone refute that WC3 retailed at $60? I really don't remember and am not sure where to look, but I've seen some confirmation of $60 (and also collector's editions back then -[link deleted])

If you want to complain about the price, you don't get to blame Activision. If you don't like the price, you don't like Blizzard's prices.

[Celeras]

Every PC game listed in that gamestop link shows up at 60 bucks.

That was kinda the point, seeing as the search I linked only shows games for that price ;p And as I pointed out, theyre all collectors editions or Activision/2 Ubisoft games post-MW2. MW2 was the first retail PC game to MSRP at $60.

[edit] I think it goes without saying I dont like Blizzards price, that doesnt mean its not Activisions fault ;p

[geno]

No, it absolutely does mean its not Activision's fault. You can't claim its their fault if Blizzard has a 100% track record of pricing in this manner.

I like games to priced by their value, not some arbitrary figure the majority of the industry has been using. For this reason, I don't buy a lot of games and when I do, I usually go through digital distribution and/or huge sales. SC2 is one of those games that I'd gladly pay $60 or more for though. So I just don't get the idea of complaining about it. Save that for the companies trying to price their games above their value whether that price point is $60 or not.

[Kaylia]

If it was a complete games, I would gladly pay the price, but with 2 more addon-on otw, I think it's a lot. Not buying the add-on isnt an option either...I just hope they wont be 30$.

[geno]

Once again, WC3. $60. Add-ons. Don't follow how anyone expected different.

If the expansions are $60, I can see how people will complain, and thats one of the few things I am curious about. Still, I'll gladly pay it.

[Flarega]

Might sound a bit nooby, but I get beat a lot by terran blocking themselves in and outteching me. Any suggestions? I play zerg mostly.

[geno]

Baneling busts are pretty popular for dealing with walling quick teching Terrans. Only takes a couple banelings to destroy a supply depot, and then overrunning them with speedlings can be pretty potent and forces more marines / bunkers.

Don't know that much else about ZvT though. I know in ZvP you can often safely take an expo early to deal with quick techers. You get your economy up early enough to really start to pump out units before them and just continue to outmacro them the whole game b/c of your economy. You just have to make sure to scout what they are teching towards and adequately prepare for it, you'll be in a massive lead. Not sure if this is as applicable for ZvT.

[Kaylia]

Once again, WC3. $60. Add-ons. Don't follow how anyone expected different.

If the expansions are $60, I can see how people will complain, and thats one of the few things I am curious about. Still, I'll gladly pay it.

Two add-on instead of one? You don't see the difference?

Having to pay 120$ to play the game online isn't cheap (60+30+30). You can argue that it's "not much", but compared to most games, it's a lot.

[geno]

No, I really don't see the difference. I think you could have said the same thing about $90 to play the game online instead of $60 and had the same conclusion. Why is $90 reasonable and $120 not? Both are significantly more than most games out there. Both also are significantly different levels of content.

I don't know why you would assume I'd argue its "not much." It clearly is a lot more than most games out there. But most games out there don't have an effective promise of 3+ years of full hardcore support with new units/maps/etc. and expansive indepedent single player campaigns guaranteed at intervals, and then who knows how long after that of their already impressive standard patches. In fact I can't think of any. This is pretty much what the add-on/expansion model is, and that type of price is what you're going to be paying for it. Why anyone expected any different is beyond me.

Not to mention in all of this you aren't accounting for time at all. Even if you made the argument that when an expansion comes out, you won't ever play the original online again (there are still people playing vanilla SC, and I think L4D now has a stronger competitive scene than L4D2), you're still getting that 6-12+ months of full community SC2 play. Shit, that's longer than I play most of the games I buy. And that time you spent didn't cost you $120, it cost you $60.

For all you know, your favorite multiplayer game could come out with a new version everyone will switch to in a year or two, and it will cost you extra money if you want to join them. Secret: almost all of them do. L4D managed to do it faster than I'd expect SC2's first expansion will hit shelves.

I guess it comes down to how Blizzard handles the expansions, and whether you'll need the previous ones to play the latest online. Let's pose a hypothetical:
a.) All three priced at $60. You can buy any one you want and play that version online.
b.) First at $60, others at $30. You can play the first online on its own, the other two require WoL or both to play online.

In this case a. is essentially the sequel model, as used in L4D and countless other games, while b. is the expansion model as seen most clearly in SC, WC3, and Half-life 2. Which would you really prefer? I'm genuinely curious. Personally, I'd buy all three either way, and I think most other SC fans would as well. I think I'm the one looking to save money here when I hope they go for a solution closer to b.

[Korietsu]

wtb mac client -_-

[Rivero]

Might sound a bit nooby, but I get beat a lot by terran blocking themselves in and outteching me. Any suggestions? I play zerg mostly.

I hate this also. Try Muta harassing to slow down his economy and make use of the Nydus Worm. If you can get a Nydus up in his base without noticing. Sometimes it's very easy on maps like Kulas Ravine where the starting base is huge, just pop that sucker in the far corner and rush in a bunch of Roaches with some Hydras in the back to deal with possible Banshees.

[Ferien]

Might sound a bit nooby, but I get beat a lot by terran blocking themselves in and outteching me. Any suggestions? I play zerg mostly.

A few things:
1. Don't hesitate to attack. Don't build up a huge army expecting your first rush to win, because if you sit too long, a Terran player is going to have tanks behind those depots, and then anything you try to do is going to be immediately stopped. Sent in a handful of zerglings to harass, and if you can get to their worker line with even 2 of them you'll slow down their teching. Going over my replays when I've lost against Terran, hesitating is the most common mistake I make.
2. Banelings are great as well, as has been said. Just, again, make sure you get in there before they get tanks or your entire army is fucked before you even get to the door.
3. If you sit and wait, you don't have a choice but to go Muta/Corruptor/Infestor, because you're going to have to deal with (probably cloaked, so build Overseers) Banshees and MMM. Mutas and Corruptors will annihilate the Banshees and Medivacs, while you'll need the Infestors (Fungal Growth, Infested Terran) to deal with the ground units before they can take out your air. Obviously you'll be pushing against their attackers with whatever Roaches/Lings/Lisks you already had built up. If you can take out this initial push of their's without losing too many of your units, generally they'll be left wide open for a simple Roach rush, esp with how quickly they can be pumped out. Your other option is to sit back and tech to Corruptors/Brood Lords and just go to town, but you risk being attacked again, and Corruptors/BLs are expensive.

Edit: Just a word (paragraph?) about Fungal Growth. It stops the units from moving for 8 seconds and deals 36 damage over time to every unit it hits. Ignoring the original discussion, if you find yourself in a position where you can outrange your opponent it's absolutely amazing. Firing it at a rush at the bottom of a cliff will allow you to kill a good bit of units before they even get to your base, and it's also one of the few ways a Zerg player can block the entry ramp (FG on the mass of units climbing up, its range is wide enough to hit the whole ramp. If they're coming at you with melee units, it gives your ranged units enough time to decimate a full army. Since the damage is done to a group of units instead of just one, you not only force Terran Medivacs to stay back with the group that got stuck, but you'll also deplete their energy very quickly, and 2 FGs can basically stop an MMM rush cold. Using it against Zerg is even better, as all of their units are small and tend to group together, not only dealing lots of damage, but allowing you to micro your units back and deal with only half of the army at a time. It also prevents your opponent from microing his own units around (Zealots, Lings, Reapers, Stalkers)

[Flarega]

I guess I need to work banelings a into my strategy a little bit more. I should have been more clear that I mostly had trouble with marauders. A terran will wall themselves in and just mass marauders, and its hard to work on a counter since I can't scout. My main issue is that if I'm worried about a marauder mass I have to invest in a large army while the terran may just be teching up so he'll wreck me with banshees, or something.

Edit: I almost like 2v2s more than 1v1, I'm only in bronze league though so if you want a challenge I'll be on your team.

[Rivero]

I guess I need to work banelings a into my strategy a little bit more. I should have been more clear that I mostly had trouble with marauders. A terran will wall themselves in and just mass marauders, and its hard to work on a counter since I can't scout. My main issue is that if I'm worried about a marauder mass I have to invest in a large army while the terran may just be teching up so he'll wreck me with banshees, or something.

Edit: I almost like 2v2s more than 1v1, I'm only in bronze league though so if you want a challenge I'll be on your team.

If they go Marauders go Zerglings/Banelings. Grab 4-5 of them and plant your Zerglings nearby. Run them into the Supply Deppot and depending on how many Marauders he has, you can either 1) divide your zergs and take out his Marauders while going for an early harass. 2) finish up whatever units he has and then rush to take out his SCV's or 3) just clean up his base efficiently.

Most ZvT I see does a mix of Mutas/Zergs/Hydras. You might want to keep that in mind.

[Wheelie]

i heard the game is getting a make over?

[Flarega]

Thanks for the help everyone, I'm starting to use the glorious ling once more.

[Ferien]

For all you know, your favorite multiplayer game could come out with a new version everyone will switch to in a year or two, and it will cost you extra money if you want to join them. Secret: almost all of them do. L4D managed to do it faster than I'd expect SC2's first expansion will hit shelves.

I guess it comes down to how Blizzard handles the expansions, and whether you'll need the previous ones to play the latest online. Let's pose a hypothetical:
a.) All three priced at $60. You can buy any one you want and play that version online.
b.) First at $60, others at $30. You can play the first online on its own, the other two require WoL or both to play online.

In this case a. is essentially the sequel model, as used in L4D and countless other games, while b. is the expansion model as seen most clearly in SC, WC3, and Half-life 2. Which would you really prefer? I'm genuinely curious. Personally, I'd buy all three either way, and I think most other SC fans would as well. I think I'm the one looking to save money here when I hope they go for a solution closer to b.

Based on what was said in the past, I think it's going to be c) Same multiplayer accessible by all three, expansions only add the single player missions.

[geno]

Based on what was said in the past, I think it's going to be c) Same multiplayer accessible by all three, expansions only add the single player missions.

That's certainly possible as well. A lot of the people just looking to play multiplayer would obviously get the most benefit out of that, paying the lowest price to do so. At the same time, I'm not really expecting that either, didn't work that way with SC or with WC3, so I'm not going to be surprised if it doesn't work that way for SC2.