Starcraft 2 is now a triology

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/starcraft-2/918896p1.html

 

A good way to milk gamer's money, I like it.

 

If this means that we'll be getting Starcraft 2 sooner... then I'm all for it.

 

They`ll still release it just in 2009

 

For both SC and WC3 I ended up waiting for the battlechests to come out first, but I don't know if I'll be able to wait that long for this...there are pros can cons for the whole trilogy this I guess.

 

There's a good reason for this. Aside from the fact that the game is supposably LONG, they spent ALOT of money in this game, and to recoup the losses on making the game, and the obvious losses from piracy, why not make it a series of games that cost faaaar less that the first because all of the engine work is already finished, this way, they will make a profit, if not on the first game, then they will on the 2nd & third.

 

Just release it damit!

If it's by Blizzard, it's worth the money!

 

Indeed. Don't worry about it. I'm sure they'll make it worth the cash do please don't pirate. You know you're going to be playing SC2 for a while so the least you could do is help out the PC industry.

 

As long as they put together a "Trilogy" Collectors Edition for $100 or so, I'm sold.

I'm assuming that if you play online though, it doesn't matter which version you have?

 

/fixed for you.

 

I think those 2nd and 3rd installments are just expansions, because i can't believe splitting a game in three only because of campaigns.

Not mentioning that most player won't go for the extra discs only for campaign mode, when piracy rules the all the internet.

Or blizzard is planing something really UBER, or they gonna end with an EPIC FAIL.

 

While I agree with what you said based on it's principles I couldn't help but laugh when I thought of Blizzard Activision needing more money. Unfortunately I think our PC gaming money would more help the industry in the hands of someone who isn't quite rolling in it atm.

Also for those of us who have been World of Warcraft subscribers, we've witnessed on a daily basis how Blizzard milks anything and everything for money. There is literally a WoW branded everything from clothing, trading card games, laptops, furniture, toys, and action figures. I'm not saying Blizzard doesn't have a good product but they always overly-exploit it in every way possible and fortunately for them we've bought into it.

 

It sounds a little fishy to me. Most RTS players barely pay attention to the single player game if they even bother playing it at all. There's got to be something withheld in each of the first two boxes besides more chapters of the single player game in order to compel people to keep buying. Sounds like a way to stretch a $50 game into a $120 game.

I'm just wondering what they're intending to cripple.

 

im just gonna buy multiplayer battle.net version, single player i can get somewhere else

 

Bah... They could sell the game for $20 and still have enough to pay for this game's developmental costs as well as warcraft IV. For starters, they've got most of Korea as customers

Simple. They keep adding the occasional new unit and rebalancing (that really should be part of patches). You then won't be able to play online like how almost no one plays Warcraft reign of chaos online but rather frozen throne.

Sigh... and I thought Blizzard was a genuinely good company.

 

Actually I think people will by it for the single player game. Starcraft has a really good story.

Well the second and third installments are to be considered "expansion packs" so they shouldn't be too much. $20...$25 I would assume. I'm thinking everything will be less than $100 at the end of the day

I wonder how long they'll wait between releases.

 

Id buy it, all of the warcraft and starcraft games have good story. If the game is genuinely as big as a normal game I see nothing wrong with splitting it into 3 parts.

Of course since the battlenet is half the game they cant really expect to sell the other 2 for full price tho as you already have the online with your first game.

 

a trilogy just like that.... i think the story will not be as great as if it was Just starcraft 2..

 

This is a really bad idea =/

Most will just buy 1 copy so they will have BNET access and just pirate the others. Id rather have 1 epic game, not 3 seperate ones... Price the one game at $80 for all i care. Just don't split it up.

 

HALF LIFE 2 ANYONE?
Seems to be similar,and with each addon, they`ll introduce new elements for sure...

 

I think it's a good move. I play Starcraft and Warcraft for the single player storylines. Occasionally, I'd multiplayer it through the LAN though. If the campaigns are as big as they say, it would be ok. At least you get the first part early as opposed to all three coming out when the last part is ready.

 

"Was" looks to be the operative word here.

Blizzard has also stated that they are going to "monetize" battlenet,whatever that means. Could have effects on both SC 2 and D3, perhaps, which were series we've previously played for free.

 

If they all don't release at the same time, it's ok.

But if they all release at once...?

I just don't know how I feel about that.

I never had a favorite Starcraft race.... And I don't wanna choose!

 

This is good in my opinion. They're taking the starcraft story more seriously than the previous games. And honestly if you ask me, Starcraft have by far the most interesting universe compared to any games out right now. Halo doesnt hold a candle.

By concentrating on each race, they're telling each respective story in more depth. Thats awesome.

 

This game will win all around.

 

i think its a horrible idea and will lead to more people pirating the game

on a related note, i think the gameplay is horrible, it somehow feels even more fake and flashy than the first starcraft, more warcraft 3-ish if you will

from what ive seen on youtube i wouldnt want to play more than 10 missions per race it would be tedious, the gameplay is too simplistic, it just feels like there has been no innovation at all, i mean its been like 10 years so much has changed since then in the RTS genre and here comes blizzard with a game that has almost the same dynamics only better graphics (ARGUABLE - anyone notice how the move to 3d has only made some game series look more cartoonish/less gritty? AOE2>3 STARCRAFT 1>2 DIABLO2>3 etc.; im not advocating a return to 2D but something obviously got lost during translation)

i guess you can say that about most RTS games coming out lately, but its just frustrating that noone is willing to put in features like every unit has its own xp counter with stats upgrades based on kills (simple), resources having to be shuttled to the place of building (if you want to build a terran bunker 2 screens away from your base an SCV has to shuttle the necessary resources from the command center to the bunker while another builds), limited ammo counters/energy levels for units like marines/hydralisks/etc. more realistic/gritty graphics (think fallout 1/2 death animations), meh i could go on for pages

anyways it just feels that blizzard seems to be getting more generic and mainstream with every game, which expands their market but alienates people looking for deeper gameplay

i was about 13 when starcraft 1 came out and the gameplay was OK for me, but now i just look at it and it disgusts me with its unrealistic cartoonish simplicity

sorry for the long rant

 

Once I read that, I couldn't take the post seriously. Especially when the game isn't even finished yet.

 

you couldnt take my post seriously because im using official gameplay videos released by Blizzard as a point of reference? youtube happens to be the hosting site for the videos, your point?

as for the game not being finished, true, but its NOT going to change drastically from what it is now in terms of graphics and gameplay, you can quote me on that

when a product is more than 3/4 through its development cycle you can evaluate it and draw pretty solid conclusions about certain aspects of it, just like we can do with far cry 2 and fallout 3 even though they arent done yet either; for example i can say fallout 3 combat will suck because its oversimplified and doesnt even use iron sights for aiming even though the game hasnt even been released yet because im 99% sure these features wont be implemented. why? mainstream appeal over deep gameplay, its a concious design choice not an unfinished feature

 

Youtube videos have awful quality. You can hardly even see the smaller units.

Go to Gametrailers, they have great videos there. Download size is fairly large tho.

 

So if it's a trilogy, so there'll be StarCraft 2, StarCraft 3, and StarCraft 4?

I'd play it and all it's brilliant storyline except for the fact that I SUCK at RTS and whenever I play I can't help but use cheats.

 

I read somewhere that it would all be Starcraft 2, and that each one of the trilogy would just be the campaign of one of the races, but supposedly they would all include the complete multiplayer.

I agree that it would suck to have to choose between the races, especially if they make all of the games $40-50. However, if they all include the complete multiplayer and each one of the campaigns is sufficiently long enough on its own. I'm not going to complain.

 

If they will release the game already, I don`t care how they do it..
I`m afraid we won`t see it until Feb 2009 though

 

The additional games better be a hell of a lot cheaper. Cause TBH i only play starcraft/warcraft for battle.net .

 

lots and lots of ranting and raving about its a bad idea, and all the rest... but honestly people 'blizzard' is a business... there a business in a market where things are very easy to get illegaly and therefore need to find new ways to make money, i bet a month or less after the release of SC2 there will be illegal versions everywhere...

the campaigns being split into 3 different "chapters" is a great idea, gives people the opportunity to really get into the game play, and also like stated will prevent the release date from being postponed..

now... think about it, if this thread was about the release of SC2 being pushed back by 5 months everyone would be whining / ranting / raving about how blizzard never releases titles on time etc etc...

its a good idea on their part, its a business not a charity right.

 

amen to that also...this is the business of gaming

 

I'm with this man. If they shipped it with just Multiplayer, I'll still buy it.

 

No, it's still going to be SC2. It's just they'll have two expansion packs for it with the other two campaigns. Like Starcraft and Stacraft: Brood War

 

the point some of us are trying to make is that Blizzard has decreased their total profits by alienating a large part of the purchasing base with their "buy 3 instead of 1" scheme, thus many of the people that were planning to buy SC2 will now download it illegally or simply buy 1 of the 3 games to get the complete multiplayer (unless blizzard splits the multiplayer in 3 but that would just be suicidal)

many couldnt care less, i personally wouldnt buy it either way nor will i play the multiplayer obviously but as far as economics go blizzard has made a mistake and that will affect its future ability to develop games; in this business you have to do everything you can to convince the gamer to BUY the game instead of DOWNLOADING it, and blizzard has done the opposite IMO by splitting it in 3 parts, the total price of which will most likely exceed $50

as far as release dates go, with the amount of money that blizzard has raked in from its diablo warcraft and starcraft series you're telling me they cant squeeze out starcraft 2 in less than 10 years? thats a bit ridiculous IMO; at that rate ill be in a nursing home by the time SC4 comes out; you cant take 10 years to develop a game and then expect people to pay enough to cover the fees for your decade-long development cycles; blizzard games are good but they are not THAT good imo

 

EDIT: I have decided that if I have nothing good to say, I am not going to say it.

(Mod didn't edit the post, I did)

 

I do hope they do better than EA and don't charge as much. It's really annoying and greedy for EA (as an example) to sell The Sims 2, then release all these expansions close the price of the vanilla game. I gives the impression that they purposely left content out of the vanilla game so they could make expansions and milk the series.

 

I doubt it will be much. And EA did pretty good with Crysis Warhead. $20...$25 for expansions is what i'm thinking

 

I'm beginning to think we've got it backwards. Blizzard didn't delay the game because they have "too much material and didn't want to cut any."

They decided they wanted to charge a hundred bucks or more for the veru first game, before what's normally considered an expansion, so figured the only way they could do that is if they made a huge bloat of single-player gameplay and called it three games or one game and two expansions instead of what it really is -- one game milked really, really hard right up front.

 

At least it will be released quicker.

 

I doubt they will soak us for $50/release. I am betting the 1st release will be your standard $40-$50 CDN and the standalone expansion packs will be $25-$30 CDN. And likely there will be a battlechest edition where you get all three and some other goodies for about $100 CDN. Nothing wrong with that if you ask me as long as the gameplay stands up.

 

Does anyone realise that because of this move we'll be able to play Starcraft 2 sooner? This is a brilliant move by Blizzard imo, give the gamers a huge story and campaign with awesome cutscenes (which is what Blizzard is good at) and while we're all playing the Terran campaign, Blizzard has the time to develop the Zerg and subsequently the Protoss campaigns. Did anyone see the Blizzcon 2007 video? The singleplayer campaign is almost rpg-like.

If you guys can't afford to play what will be an awesome game well worth your money (otherwise Blizzard wouldn't release it - they have a reputation to keep up you know) then don't complain to Blizzard, complain to your boss. In addition, if you're unhappy with what you spent your money on, just return it to the store.

 

Nobody needs 90 single player missions, and I doubt seriously that the reason they're splitting things up is to get us the game any quicker. You really think they were originally planning on 90 single player missions and only well into the process went "OOPS! What wuz we thinking!"?

It's coding and balancing and making sure the game is stable online and doing the artwork that takes a long time, not building single-player missions. If all they've got to worry about is single-player missions, the game has probably been essentially done for ages.

 

I think people are missing the point if they think there will be 60+ levels you actually have to do. The single player system is now very non-linear, most of the 20-30 missions (per race) you can do will be your choice. You can skip most of them and just do the 10-15 missions needed to complete the game if you feel you'll get bored.

Obviously doing extra missions like 'saving the last colonists' or whatever they come up with will help you gain extras for future campaigns but they aren't critical either.

You'll still get the same ending either way. Great way to seperate the completists from those who just want to rush the game.