Support NeoGAF

[GenericPseudonym]

Activision doesnt control Blizzard, for those who have not realized it by now

Bullshit, this move reeks of it. Vivendi may have taken over Activision but they were quite happy letting their existing VU Games get merged under the management of Kotick & Co. This is just a taste of the yearly "exploitation" of franchises. The PR guys can spin this any way they want but it just doesn't pass the smell test.

Just think of it like Half-Life 2 episodes, without the "Half-Life 2."

No, not at all really. First off the Half Life 2 episodes were always episodic so the whining wasn't based off being misled for a year and a half. Second, each episode represents a full Half-Life experience with gunplay, Gordon, Alex and the storyline moving forward. SC2 will now see the campaign of two of the three races entirely cut out, which is really without precedent. It's as if the the Soviet disc or Nod disc from any CnC game was held hostage for a year and you paid half price for it.

 

[echoshifting]

Blizzard gets your money either way. =|

Fine with me. I am an unabashed Blizzard whore and even if the price is outrageous (sounds like it probably will be) I'll buy it. The price is not what I take issue with.

Honestly if Starcraft II came out in six months with all three campaigns and cost $150 I'd still buy it.

 

[KHarvey16]

Bullshit, this move reeks of it. Vivendi may have taken over Activision but they were quite happy letting their existing VU Games get merged under the management of Kotick & Co. This is just a taste of the yearly "exploitation" of franchises. The PR guys can spin this any way they want but it just doesn't pass the smell test.

Is this when you put your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalala I CAN'T HEAR YOUUUUU!"

C'mon people, take a deep breath and ease up on the assumptions.

 

[Zzoram]

Fine with me. I am an unabashed Blizzard whore and even if the price is outrageous (sounds like it probably will be) I'll buy it. The price is not what I take issue with.

Honestly if Starcraft II came out in six months with all three campaigns and cost $150 I'd still buy it.

Me too. That is what I would prefer, but alas it won't happen.

We do know that they gave out beta codes at Blizzcon for an upcoming game, and Starcraft 2 is the next game being released, so expect a spring 2009 beta.

 

[GenericPseudonym]

Is this when you put your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalala I CAN'T HEAR YOUUUUU!"

C'mon people, take a deep breath and ease up on the assumptions.

It's as much an assumption as you're taking. At the end of the day Blizzard is a part of Activision Blizzard, Kotick is the CEO of Activision Blizzard and thus calls the shots.

 

[HK-47]

Bullshit, this move reeks of it. Vivendi may have taken over Activision but they were quite happy letting their existing VU Games get merged under the management of Kotick & Co. This is just a taste of the yearly "exploitation" of franchises. The PR guys can spin this any way they want but it just doesn't pass the smell test.


No, not at all really. First off the Half Life 2 episodes were always episodic so the whining wasn't based off being misled for a year and a half. Second, each episode represents a full Half-Life experience with gunplay, Gordon, Alex and the storyline moving forward. SC2 will now see the campaign of two of the three races entirely cut out, which is really without precedent. It's as if the the Soviet disc or Nod disc from any CnC game was held hostage for a year and you paid half price for it.

You think Activision can boss Blizz around? You give them too much credit. Activision gave themselves up just to be part of the same company as Blizzard.

 

[MrTroubleMaker]

It all depends on the price for me. I don't know ... :s

 

[KHarvey16]

It's as much an assumption as you're taking. At the end of the day Blizzard is a part of Activision Blizzard, Kotick is the CEO of Activision Blizzard and thus calls the shots.

What assumption am I taking, exactly? I'm not aware of any. But I see we can add "unilateral decision making" to your list.

 

[HK-47]

It's as much an assumption as you're taking. At the end of the day Blizzard is a part of Activision Blizzard, Kotick is the CEO of Activision Blizzard and thus calls the shots.

And even if it is true, you dont think the millions of fans arent just as much a factor? Millions of people want this out now.

Still lol at Activision controlling Blizz. WoW says stfu to Kotick

 

[GenericPseudonym]

What assumption am I taking, exactly? I'm not aware of any. But I see we can add "unilateral decision making" to your list.

I didn't say unilateral, I'm saying Activision Blizzard management leaned on Morhaime/Pardo etc. to deliver something. Even if Blizzard is nominally independent they still work underneath a higher power, who can make life very difficult for them. What your assumption is, is that Blizzard is totally immune to pressure from higher management and made a unilateral decision that has no precedent, no popularity and fundamentally contradicts everything they've done.

 

[HK-47]

I didn't say unilateral, I'm saying Activision Blizzard management leaned on Morhaime/Pardo etc. to deliver something. Even if Blizzard is nominally independent they still work underneath a higher power, who can make life very difficult for them. What your assumption is, is that Blizzard is totally immune to pressure from higher management and made a unilateral decision that has no precedent, no popularity and fundamentally contradicts everything they've done.

They stated in all the press releases about the merger that it wont affect Blizz's operations. The last thing Vivendi wants is Activision fucking around with the golden goose.

 

[KHarvey16]

I didn't say unilateral, I'm saying Activision Blizzard management leaned on Morhaime/Pardo etc. to deliver something. Even if Blizzard is nominally independent they still work underneath a higher power, who can make life very difficult for them.

Oh, so I didn't falsely accuse you of making assumptions, I just mischaracterized said assumption. I'm not catching on to how that refutes my main point.

What your assumption is, is that Blizzard is totally immune to pressure from higher management and made a unilateral decision that has no precedent, no popularity and fundamentally contradicts everything they've done.

Where did I claim any of that? I haven't jumped to any conclusions here, that's all you.

 

[echoshifting]

You know, the more I think about this, the more I believe they should release Starcraft II with barebones single player for $60 and then go on to release all three of the big single player campaigns for $25-$30 apiece without any multiplayer at all (but you have to have the base game to play them). You'd still end up paying $150 but it'd make the whole thing much easier to swallow.

They could even throw in a multiplayer-focused expansion with new units and maps.

 

[FLEABttn]

This happening doesn't "reek" of Activision.

It "reeks" of WoW's success.

 

[Kintaro]

And even if it is true, you dont think the millions of fans arent just as much a factor? Millions of people want this out now.

It's been ten years. Millions of people wanted it 5 years ago. What's another year or two at this point?

"When it's done." Seems to no longer be Blizzard's motto, otherwise this decision wouldn't have been made IMO. I've never said the game they release wouldn't be good, but this issomething that seems out of the ordinary for them.

It's such a crock to me that people believe this "Well, we could delay even longer...but people want it now!" spiel. As if that shit used to matter to them.

 

[permutated]

Zerg first PLZ.

 

[HK-47]

This happening doesn't reek of Activision.

It reeks of WoW's success.

I dont see no monthly fee. I see three games with SC sized campaigns and what will be the definitive MP RTS

 

[Mrbob]

Activision has no pull over Blizzard.

You know, the more I think about this, the more I believe they should release Starcraft II with barebones single player for $60 and then go on to release all three of the big single player campaigns for $25-$30 apiece without any multiplayer at all (but you have to have the base game to play them). You'd still end up paying $150 but it'd make the whole thing much easier to swallow.

Eh, what?

 

[echoshifting]

Eh, what?

Well, I'm not going to bitch about the price, I'll end up paying it no matter what, but I don't like the idea of paying for the multiplayer component of the game three times very much. That's effectively what they're asking us to do. Just throwing something different out there that changes that perception a bit.

 

[FLEABttn]

I dont see no monthly fee. I see three games with SC sized campaigns and what will be the definitive MP RTS

Something doesn't have to have a monthly fee to be influenced by WoW's success.

I also suppose I should have put reeks in quotes because I honestly have no problem with this move.

 

[GenericPseudonym]

This happening doesn't reek of Activision.

It reeks of WoW's success.

How? WoW was released as an MMO that was as complete and polished as any there ever was on Day 1. This would only be analogous if WoW was sold as a Horde disc and an Alliance disc and there was significant lag time between them. Again this decision is without precedent it reeks of desperation not any sort of great plan.

No one likes this, or should like this. There's two groups of people, those who are dissapointed and those who are relatively neutral there is no one who supports this, so it really can't be that Blizzard thought this was a good idea, rather they thought it was the only way it could happen.

 

[HK-47]

Something doesn't have to have a monthly fee to be influenced by WoW's success.

I also suppose I should have put reeks in quotes because I honestly have no problem with this move.

So explain how this is influenced?

 

[KHarvey16]

This happening doesn't "reek" of Activision.

It "reeks" of WoW's success.

This is very vague.

 

[FLEABttn]

How? WoW was released as an MMO that was as complete and polished as any there ever was on Day 1. This would only be analogous if WoW was sold as a Horde disc and an Alliance disc and there was significant lag time between them. Again this decision is without precedent it reeks of deperation not any sort of great plan.

How?

Easy.

Why have someone pay you once for your product when you can get them to pay multiple times?

 

[Mrbob]

No...I don't understand your logic for pricing.

Release SC2 single player for 60 dollars, and then the campaigns individually for 25 to 30 bucks?

And no, you aren't paying for the multiplayer three times either. You are getting a wealth of single player content too. I guess you were against Starcraft Brood Wars as well then? The greatest expansion pack of all time, forced you to upgrade if you wanted the new units. Whats the big deal. If you didn't want Brood War (who didn't?) you could still play vanilla SC online.

 

[HK-47]

How? WoW was released as an MMO that was as complete and polished as any there ever was on Day 1. This would only be analogous if WoW was sold as a Horde disc and an Alliance disc and there was significant lag time between them. Again this decision is without precedent it reeks of desperation not any sort of great plan.

No one likes this, or should like this. There's two groups of people, those who are dissapointed and those who are relatively neutral there is no one who supports this, so it really can't be that Blizzard thought this was a good idea, rather they thought it was the only way it could happen.

Everyone must fit into the roles I assign them so my argument has merit!

Maybe, just maybe, this is how Blizzard thought was the best way to approach this. If there is one company I wouldnt want to bet against in the game department, its Blizzard

(I also wouldnt be against Nintendo in sales and Capcom in awesome)

 

[Won]

It's been ten years. Millions of people wanted it 5 years ago. What's another year or two at this point?

"When it's done." Seems to no longer be Blizzard's motto, otherwise this decision wouldn't have been made IMO. I've never said the game they release wouldn't be good, but this issomething that seems out of the ordinary for them.

It's such a crock to me that people believe this "Well, we could delay even longer...but people want it now!" spiel. As if that shit used to matter to them.

At one point even the developer himself wants to release something. Blizzard is sitting on SC2 since forever now and they didn't release any new full games since WoW 4 years ago.
I'm pretty sure Blizzard themself want to deliver something to all the waiting people out there and they found a model, in which they can flesh out all the new concepts, give the fans extended campaigns with tons of CG cutscenes, deliver the game as soon as possible even with the "when it's done" rule and on top of that it is probably good for Blizzard bottomless wallet.

 

[HK-47]

How?

Easy.

Why have someone pay you once for your product when you can get them to pay multiple times?

This is the logic behind every expansion pack and piece of DLC ever. Way to go

 

[KyanMehwulfe]

Just reading this now myself... Not sure the reaction in pages 2-7 but seems mixed based on the first and last....

In any case, what comes to mind for me is that it's really impossible to conclude on until I've seen the single campaign. If it's about on par with just one WC3 chapter, then that sucks; if it still feels the size of the entire WC3 campaign, then I'm cool with it.

I'd likely be more annoyed if I was biased to a specific faction though and I was going to have to wait longer for it.

 

[FLEABttn]

This is the logic behind every expansion pack and piece of DLC ever. Way to go

Which makes it invalid? I'm just stating the obvious because people think this is some evil, nefarious business move that 1) came directly from Activision and/or 2) doesn't make business sense.

Could Blizzard patch in WotLK's content into the game as it stands now? Yes. But why do that when they know I will pay $40 for it. Nobody blame Activision for this.

 

[Morbid Angel]

If there is enough content to justify a standalone release..what's the problem? I'm all for it.

 

[Pureauthor]

I don't get it. The net result of this is that you get an extra 30 missions for... well, I'm assuming standard expansion pack pricing. What's the problem here?

 

[HK-47]

Which makes it invalid? I'm just stating the obvious because people think this is some evil, nefarious business move that 1) came directly from Activision and/or 2) doesn't make business sense.

Could Blizzard patch in WotLK's content into the game as it stands now? Yes. But why do that when they know I will pay $40 for it. Nobody blame Activision for this.

Will it wasnt WoW either since they could just give me Brood War or Frozen Throne for free, but they dont. It isnt WoW, its business

 

[echoshifting]

No...I don't understand your logic for pricing.

Release SC2 single player for 60 dollars, and then the campaigns individually for 25 to 30 bucks?

I meant release it with barebones single player and multiplayer for $60. Sorry if that was confusing. Then each campaign for 25-30 (no multiplayer), and possibly even a multiplayer-only expansion with new units and maps.

And no, you aren't paying for the multiplayer three times either. You are getting a wealth of single player content too. I guess you were against Starcraft Brood Wars as well then? The greatest expansion pack of all time, forced you to upgrade if you wanted the new units. Whats the big deal. If you didn't want Brood War (who didn't?) you could still play vanilla SC online.

I LOVE Brood War, how dare you sir!

Of course Brood War had roughly the same amount of single player content we are getting with each trilogy pack, it had new units for each side in multiplayer and plenty of new maps, and it only cost $30. I'm not sure how you can compare the two. It sounds to me like the other campaign packs won't offer anything new in multiplayer that people without them won't get for free.

 

[TransTrender]

I was at BlizzCon when they announced this and I think it's a great move.

They said that all of the races will be playable and balanced for skirmish and multiplayer when the first campaign is released. So don't worry. The trilogy just breaks the single player aspect of the game into three epic pieces. I LOVED the story telling in Starcraft (and Warcraft III) and from what I saw at BlizzCon I'm convinced that SC2 will be the most innovative and revolutionary RTS ever made.

Before I was excited that SC2 is coming out, now it's my most anticipated game (FFXIII, WotLK, and D3 just got knocked down).

 

[Zzoram]

I don't think you can call the full Terran campaign of ~30 missions "barebones", when that is how many missions were in the original game in total.

 

[TransTrender]

I guess you were against Starcraft Brood Wars as well then? The greatest expansion pack...

Indeed. Best. Expansion. Ever.

Spoiler

Homeworld: Cataclysm was my second best

 

[echoshifting]

I don't think you can call the full Terran campaign of ~30 missions "barebones", when that is how many missions were in the original game in total.

I guess I'm not explaining myself very well. I'll break it down. My proposed release/pricing would be as follows:

1) Starcraft II: Contains all multiplayer/skirmish, and a barebones single player campaign designed to teach new players how to play the game. $60
2) Terran Campaign pack: contains the complete Terran Campaign. $25-$30
3) Zerg Campaign pack, same as above. $25-$30
4) Protoss Campaign pack, same as above. $25-$30
5) Multiplayer expansion: Contains new units and maps for multiplayer. $20-$30

You'd pay about the same but you'd never have to feel like you were paying for the same features more than once.

 

[farnham]

so basically you have to pay 3 times

no prob for me

gimme a lot of story blizzard


and i love how the protoss scenario is the last

the ultimate winner of Starcraft 2 singleplayer is protoss..? (plz be true)

 

[Zzoram]

so basically you have to pay 3 times

no prob for me

gimme a lot of story blizzard


and i love how the protoss scenario is the last

the ultimate winner of Starcraft 2 singleplayer is protoss..? (plz be true)

The campaign is meant to teach you how to play. All serious Broodwar players know Terran is harder for noobs to learn, and Protoss is the easiest for noobs to learn.

 

[GenericPseudonym]

I don't think you can call the full Terran campaign of ~30 missions "barebones", when that is how many missions were in the original game in total.

Thirty missions with Terran only =/= Thirty missions spread equally across all three races. You still lose the completed experience, you still are on the hook for another two thirds of the game.

 

[Mrbob]

Of course Brood War had roughly the same amount of single player content we are getting with each trilogy pack, it had new units for each side in multiplayer and plenty of new maps, and it only cost $30. I'm not sure how you can compare the two. It sounds to me like the other campaign packs won't offer anything new in multiplayer that people without them won't get for free.

Not sure what you are talking about. Supposedly the Terran campaign in SC2 has 25 to 30 missions, which fits roughly in with all three campaign missions for Starcraft. Brood War had what...18? I still don't understand the negativity. We have to see what Blizzard has in store first, but it sounds like they are focusing on driving the campaign story so it is possible all 3 starcraft 2 titles will have between 25 to 30 campaign missions.

 

[Zzoram]

Is there a forum with a more active PC community talking? It seems like all the threads on this everywhere are pretty slow moving.

Actually, I'd love to see this discussed on a podcast ASAP.

 

[HK-47]

Thirty missions with Terran only =/= Thirty missions spread equally across all three races. You still lose the completed experience, you still are on the hook for another two thirds of the game.

Why dont you sit tight and see what the unique features for each faction's campaign are before considering this the prime evil of Blizzard

 

[Comic]

I guess I'm not explaining myself very well. I'll break it down. My proposed release/pricing would be as follows:

1) Starcraft II: Contains all multiplayer/skirmish, and a barebones single player campaign designed to teach new players how to play the game. $60
2) Terran Campaign pack: contains the complete Terran Campaign. $25-$30
3) Zerg Campaign pack, same as above. $25-$30
4) Protoss Campaign pack, same as above. $25-$30
5) Multiplayer expansion: Contains new units and maps for multiplayer. $20-$30

You'd pay about the same but you'd never have to feel like you were paying for the same features more than once.

Honestly that sounds horrible. What you're getting now, and I don't believe they've mentioned prices...but lets base it on past pricing.

1) StarCraft II: Contains complete Terran Campaign, contains complete multiplayer. (~$60)
2) StarCraft II: Zerg Campaign (~$40)
3) StarCraft II: Protoss Campaign (~$40)

Yours costs $145-$180, mine costs ~$140, and anyone who just wants to play multiplayer only needs to spend ~$60, whereas yours is $80-$90 for someone who wants full multiplayer.

The main difference between them? Mine follows everything they've announced, yours does not.

You still lose the completed experience, you still are on the hook for another two thirds of the game.

Blizzard said themselves that these are like complete games unto themselves, thus why they're releasing them. Even though they're expansion packs, they're like standalone games. They're talking about the CONTENT here, if you haven't realized.

 

[echoshifting]

Not sure what you are talking about. Supposedly the Terran campaign in SC2 has 25 to 30 missions, which fits roughly in with all three campaign missions for Starcraft. Brood War had what...18? I still don't understand the negativity. We have to see what Blizzard has in store first, but it sounds like they are focusing on driving the campaign story so it is possible all 3 starcraft 2 titles will have between 25 to 30 campaign missions.

Eh? Brood War had close to 30 missions. We KNOW each of these campaigns will have about the same amount, they said as much. I have no issue with the pricing of the single player. My issue is each of these packs comes with the full-fledged multiplayer component, and so surely each will be priced so they all offer the same value. I don't like feeling like I'm paying for the same thing more than once, even if I am ready and willing to do it. I believe people who buy the "Terran chapter" should have some option to buy the zerg or protoss chapters without having to buy the full product. They effectively confirmed today that those chapters will not expand the multiplayer game.

 

[Mrbob]

Why do you assume they will be priced the same?

It very well could be $50 for SC2 Terran, then 35 for each of the zerg and protoss expansions.

All this bitching has much ado about nothing until we get more details.

 

[echoshifting]

Honestly that sounds horrible. What you're getting now, and I don't believe they've mentioned prices...but lets base it on past pricing.

1) StarCraft II: Contains complete Terran Campaign, contains complete multiplayer. (~$60)
2) StarCraft II: Zerg Campaign (~$40)
3) StarCraft II: Protoss Campaign (~$40)

Yours costs $180, mine costs $140, and anyone who just wants to play multiplayer only needs to spend $60, whereas yours is $80-$90 for someone who wants full multiplayer.

The main difference between them? Mine follows everything they've announced, yours does not.

Actually, you're wrong. They already announced that you won't need the first pack to play the multiplayer game. It will be offered in full in packs 2 and 3. Therefore it doesn't make much sense to offer those packs for $20 less apiece. I would expect them to offer those packs for the same price or at a marginally reduced price. Probably no more than $10 less than the first chapter.

And I never said I was trying to follow what they've announced, sheesh. Just proposing a pricing plan I think would work.

Why do you assume they will be priced the same?

It very well could be $50 for SC2 Terran, then 35 for each of the zerg and protoss expansions.

All this bitching has much ado about nothing until we get more details.

I'm not bitching, I'm speculating.

I would speculate that because you can play the multiplayer game without the first pack, they would need to offer packs 2 and 3 at a similar price to maintain the value of pack 1.

 

[Comic]

Eh? Brood War had close to 30 missions. We KNOW each of these campaigns will have about the same amount, they said as much. I have no issue with the pricing of the single player. My issue is each of these packs comes with the full-fledged multiplayer component, and so surely each will be priced so they all offer the same value. I don't like feeling like I'm paying for the same thing more than once, even if I am ready and willing to do it. I believe people who buy the "Terran chapter" should have some option to buy the zerg or protoss chapters without having to buy the full product. They effectively confirmed today that those chapters will not expand the multiplayer game.

My understanding is that they're keeping that from happening. I don't believe you can buy the zerg or protoss campaigns seperately, as they aren't ACTUALLY standalone games. You can't just go and buy any of the three and get multiplayer, only the Terran Campaign has it, but it has the entirety of the multiplayer- the zerg and protoss campaigns not changing the multiplayer at all.

Or at least, that's what they've announced, by my understanding.

 

[TransTrender]

In the big picture, multiplayer is basically free because it is dwarfed by the resources consumed in making the single player campaign.

Think of it as, "For $60 I get an awesome single player experience and I get multiplayer for free!"