Starcraft 2 delayed till 2010.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3175463

Also a possibility that d3 will be released next year as well

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/59859

 

sigh, i was looking forward to sc2 too...isnt this is like the 3rd time they delayed it

 

Who saw that one coming!?

Blizzard never releases anything on time, but it'll be worth the wait.

 

Wups, back into the oxygen chamber then!

 

Eh, kind of expected.

 

Well, like above stated, there has been so many delays it doesnt' surprise anybody anymore.

Diablo 3 next year? No way, Blizzard is not that fast on releases.

 

typical blizzard stalling

 

When was the last time Blizzard released something on time?

 

Dont mind the delays to be honest. Getting a "finished" product without a zillion bugs seems more important to me

 

Haha....much to be expected. Diablo 3, however, seems way too early so I guess they'll end up pushing it back a couple of times.....

 

TBH, I don't think it's so much bugs as it is play balancing. IIRC, original Starcraft was delayed over a year just to balance the races. I think the engine is pretty much done, now it's fine tuning and removing any exploits. I'm sure they have a heavy closed beta team in South Korea. They'd be silly not to.

 

They know you'll all wait for it. They don't care. They might just be messing with whether they want to make a guy's gun blue or green or some nonsense.

 

Would you delay your "paycheck" over something like that ?

 

Lmao, that could very well be true XD

 

Delayed? how can it be delayed if it never had a release date?

2010 is just around the corner so it doesnt mean its far off, but when in 2010 is the question.

 

still 59.99 bucks and on pre-order

 

My gosh, i knew about this for a while but with the way things are shaping up 2010 will be the greatest video game year of all time.

 

Wow so expensive games are these days!

 

Guess I'll be playing the old one for a little while more.

*And then they move the release date again on 2010*

 

The two games that I bought this laptop for :X

This is pretty depressing, HOPEFULLY D3 isn't pushed back too much as I'm actually looking forward to that a bit more than SC2

 

Well this blows....waiting continues.

 

Anyone opening odds on both games being delayed until 2011 yet?

 

Hey Hey Hey!! We of the Blue faction know that this kind of desicion is crtical, and would not want them to rush it in case they erroneously choose a lesser green hue.

So let's not be hasty here!



Just kidding. Actually, though I'm not really much of a RTS fan, I'm kinda looking forward to SC2.

 

I don't think this is suprising, there hasn't even been an open beta yet

 

Apparently, they are using this time to fully develop the new Battle.net 2.0

That is probably wise considering there is no LAN anymore. If they had any major issues with multiplayer and such at launch, there is going to be a mob of angry gamers mad about it and saying oh how much a mistake Blizzard made without LAN (since no more Hamachi)

 

2011 sounds unlikely for SC2, especially since the beta already opened. On the other hand D3 sounds a good candidate... for 2012.

 

$59.99? So now it's going to be $180 instead of $150 to play the complete Starcraft 2 story?

Glad I passed on this one.

 

D3 without LAN would just be horrible.

 

I guess i'll just stick to my SF4 for now.
I still play SC:BW. Still loads of fun.. I can wait a little till SC2 comes out. At least I'll be productive in my life until then. Thank god i'm out of college lol

 

Here is a petition for Diablo 3 with LAN.

http://www.petitiononline.com/d3lan08/petition.html

 

The thread topic fails to shock.

You mean $59.99 for 1/3 of the game.

 

Too bad , but hey guys look at the bright side ... they'll spend more time

shaping the game (bnet,balancing,and graphics etc) ... i hope they include

LAN in that game ... LAN is like the main reason im buying SC2 ... i believe

that blizzard will lose a huge segmant of the market share by excluding

LAN ... that segmant will include:-

1.most of the people living in third world countries (if not all of them because they cant afford internet connection)

2.those who have a slow internet connection at home (ISP sucks)

3.students in hostels and collages (they cant play online under the university domain)

4.people who travel alot for work or attending seminars (me n almost all my friends are like this .. whenever we travel we play LAN in our free time )

5.LAN gaming cafes.. they are everywhere in my country and they onlly buy Oraginal games with LAN support (they never pirate and crack games coz it will cost them their commercial lives )... bnet wont do any good coz u need to pay a fortune to get a decent internet connection to satisfy more than 50 gamer at the same time and if they do that they'll barely reach their breakeven point


I know that SC2 has single player and skirmich (Which are fun )But after a while it gets boring if you dont have a human being sharing the fun of SC2
on LAN with u... The game simply will die amoung that segmant after a while (if they bought it)...

Best of luck blizzard ...

 

This is the whole issue I have with announcing games way in advance, or having "advanced looks" by the media. It all means nothing. I hate reading gaming sites or magazines any more because of it. Talking in detail about a game supposedly to be released in 6-12 months is nonsense.

It seems the media pushes previews out earlier and earlier as do game companies announcing them. It makes no sense to me.

I usually do a one to two month look ahead as to what's coming out, no more. I might keep a high profile game like SC2 on my radar, but that's all. Even the original Starcraft graphics engine was scrapped once and redone. I'll get excited when it's gone gold.

 

Ya know, i have to ask - I've seen the argument before on various subjects, about needing a design feature (in this case, LAN) because you don't want to exclude those who can't afford an internet connection.

We're talking about someone who CAN afford a gaming computer of some type (figure $1k for a min system, or $2k avg, maybe even higher), plus someone who can afford to drop $60 on the game. I'd think this would be an indicator that you could afford an internet connection....

...or am I wrong? (Not trying to troll, but honestly curious - the argument just never seems to make sense to me...)

 

Starcraft 2 will most likely not be a hardware killer like Crysis is. Blizzard is very well known for making their games accessible to as wide a range of computers as possible.

I have no doubt that SC2 will at least be playable on lower settings for sub $750 laptops and sub $500 desktops. Many people can afford that much money since you use can use a computer for years but can't afford the $30 a month for high speed internet.

Anyways, a huge gripe about the lack of LAN is in LAN parties. I've been in alot of them over the years and many times (not formally setup ones, like ones with friends) there may be trouble getting everyone access to the internet due to router issues and such. We can get into a network but not online so we just use LAN and everything works perfectly.

Another potential problem is that if you got 20 people all using one router and one internet connection, there will bound to be problems if they're all trying to use B.net to play with each other.

 

unless they spend their life savings on getting that gaming notebook and the game, THEN they won't be able to afford the interwebs!

 

Yes i can ... but i wrote above >> ISP sucks
our internet service providor sucks, big time ... i have never had a satisfiying online experience myself ,,, in "Final fantasy online" the ping can reach 700 or 800 !! while in other countries the maximam they get is 50 .. can you believe that !?

also i wrote 5 points (from my point of view to emphsize the need for a LAN)

think of urself like blizzard .. u need to make all gamers+LAN cafe

owners in the whole world to

buy sc2 what would you do ? u'll onlly pick the rich gamers ? or mid-level ? or

poor? or all of them ( by making everyone happy )?? its ur choice

*signs* LAN is more reliable n efficient ma friend ( no lags , you can make lan everywhere , no need for routers for your gang to play together ,no need for internet connections , no headach , you can meet everywhere n anytime to play )

yeah i know sum people who can barely get a decent cpu (to run SC2) i dont think they'll have enough money laterz to get a decent internet connection ..

haha in the end its up to blizzard to decide .. go to youtube guys and write (hitler's SC2 downfall) haha its funny even hitler is pissed about it .. i dunno if its legal to post links of youtube in this fourm or not ,,, thanks for ur time

 

(1) An avg gaming rig should only cost $1000 and last for two years. Not out of the realm of possibility of anyone with a meager income if it's their hobby.

(2) Not everyone has good internet connections. Those of us who do (myself included) are spoiled. I don't know how many times I've visited friends or family elsewhere in the States only to find out the best they can get is 256kbps DSL. So it isn't a lot to do with cost.

 

OK, that makes sense. As I said, wasn't meaning to troll, but wanted to get some other views. I've played on lan setups on deployments and loved it - so I would also like to see this for SC2 (and all games, really!) but I was just curious about the logic.

 

Yes, I have/had the same reservations. Although it sounds like in order to LAN the PC's only need to authenticate to the main server and not play through Battle.net. You can keep gaming traffic on the local network.

 

Really? From what I have read, you would have to still go to Battle.net. You have to host a battle.net game and have your friends join it, presumably a password protected game. Either way, it will be too dependent upon a good internet connection for my liking.

I have had been to way too many LAN parties where we didn't have a stable internet connection.

 

Yeah, thats what I heard too. Everything will have to go through battle.net.

 

I guess we will all have to wait and see. I've heard a few different things. If everyone has to play through battle.net then that will be a major issue. It makes zero sense. The pings will be awful with 8-12 players streaming through the same internet connection. That completely goes against the whole idea of a LAN.

Someone should hold multiple Starcraft 2 LAN meets containing hundreds of people and completely bring down their servers just to prove that it's a moronic idea.

 

I find it amusing that while everybody is complaining about LAN missing, only myself and one other guy addressed the fact that $60 only buys you ONE THIRD OF STARCRAFT II.

 

Maybe, because it's not the case.

You have some Blizzard interviews to read.

 

What? Blizzard sets release dates? I thought they were always 'It'll be out when it's ready', like it should be.

 

I respect Blizzard's attitude. They understand that quality is the ultimate goal, not promptness. I've seen too many games with a lot of potential fall flat because they were too buggy.

 

Oh? Do link them, please.

Everything I have read states that Starcraft II is going to be a trilogy of games, each one being full retail price.

 

Same here. $60 each, but multiplayer units are same regardless of game bought.

Maybe in the end they will have the base package, then two expansions for $20 or $30. As much as I like Starcraft, I refuse to pay $180 for a game. I'd pay $100 for all three campaigns, mainly because I know it will be quality.