Support NeoGAF

[Lostconfused]

I didn't even think about that, but you're right, there will likely 8 versions of the game, just like Vista, Starcraft 2 Terran & the Terran Collector's Tin, Zerg & the Zerg Tin, Protoss & the Protoss Tin, and then the budget box set with all three games, and finally the Ultimate Box Tin with all three games and tons of extras.

Figure all that's around ~$420 at full price retail, better start saving now!

Well for one blizzard never did a two sets of battle chests so its 7. Also their limited editions really are limited, sure its a way to make some extra money for them but the stuff they put in the box actually has value.

And honestly i had no idea you liked to buy 3 copies of the same game.

Edit: Or according to your logic, 9 copies of the same game. Or do you just want to own each version of the box?

 

[Pop On Arrival]

Man, this just reassures that Warcraft IV isn't even on their table yet. How long must I wait?

 

[speedpop]

Oh fuck! Gaming expenses!

Man, this just reassures that Warcraft IV isn't even on their table yet. How long must I wait?

You and me both.

 

[X26]

the fuck? forget this then

 

[Minsc]

Well for one blizzard never did a two sets of battle chests so its 7. Also their limited editions really are limited, sure its a way to make some extra money for them but the stuff they put in the box actually has value.

And honestly i had no idea you liked to buy 3 copies of the same game.

Edit: Or according to your logic, 9 copies of the same game. Or do you just want to own each version of the box?

Just poking a little fun at the people complaining they have to spend another $40 to buy 3 games (and get more game to go with it) instead of the expected 2 (with less content).

It's possible they could even release a 3rd expansion down the road, containing follow-up campaigns for all three races, or even break the follow-up stories into another 3 expansion campaigns, making there be 6 wonderful Starcraft games to buy, with like 20 or 30 different boxes to collect in total!

And, they could even make 2 or 3 alternate covers for all the boxes and have a total of 100 different ones between all the expansions and collection sets! That's like $4,000 to own the complete experience.

 

[thrasher]

If I wanna play the Zerg campaign I'll have to wait a year or two?

Bollocks!!!

 

[tzp2gameknight]

As long as this doesn't add up to me paying for the game three times at full price I'm ok with this.

 

[Kunan]

11 pages of bitching about getting more of starcraft 2. wow.

Not to mention that its 11 pages of not reading the link in the OP. Mass bans neogaf has never seen? Why do people suck so much?

 

[Xater]

You can't ask for a longer campaign, each campaign is as long as the previous game (thus why they're splitting it into three, because daaaamn that's a lot of campaign).

And that's fine but anything less and this is a rip-off.

 

[Dina]

Man, this just reassures that Warcraft IV isn't even on their table yet. How long must I wait?

You'll sooner get WoW2 then WC4.

 

[bigswords]

Anyways no matter what the fans are going to buy all 3. Sooooo basic economy, if you can milk it...why the heck not.

"Hell, it's about time"

 

[Scotch]

If the first one feels like a complete game and the second two are priced as expansions, than I don't mind at all. The more Starcraft the better.

 

[ghst]

Not to mention that its 11 pages of not reading the link in the OP. Mass bans neogaf has never seen? Why do people suck so much?

i've read the op, they're being deliberately vague with the multiplayer details, and the idea of splintering the community into oblivion for the sake of a couple of unit unlocks (unlike say, company of heroes, which released a single expansion which introduced two entirely new factions with their own single player campaigns, aswell as releasing a patch which made the original fully compatible.) is not something that rests easy with alot of players who will only ever use it for the multiplayer.

 

[Proc]

what the fuck is this shit?

 

[Minsc]

what the fuck is this shit?

Some of the best games you'll be able to play on a PC in 2009, 2010, and 2011.

 

[JayDubya]

You'll sooner get WoW2 then WC4.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. I hope you're wrong.

 

[The Lamonster]

Comforting to see GAF mostly disapproves of this news.



Seriously. Just fucking make the game and release it, stop trying to out-epic yourselves.

 

[Trasher]

At this point I doubt they will even continue making Warcraft unless it has the words "World of" before it. This would make me sad.

 

[The Lamonster]

At this point I doubt they will even continue making Warcraft unless it has the words "World of" before it. This would make me sad.

At this rate, WC4 will take about 12 years to develop.

 

[Akia]

Some of the best games you'll be able to play on a PC in 2009, 2010, and 2011.

More like 2009, 2011 and 2012.

What if Blizzard chops up Diablo 3 and sells each Act separately? They said Act I is pretty much done.

 

[Trasher]

At this rate, WC4 will take about 12 years to develop.

I'm sure we will be long dead by the time it comes out.

 

[Lostconfused]

Not to mention that its 11 pages of not reading the link in the OP. Mass bans neogaf has never seen?

This. Its time to start culling the herd.

 

[Zzoram]

It'll probably be 60 for Terran, 30-40 for Zerg and Protoss. Sucks, but what can you do. Blizzard has yet to let me down with their games.

If it's $60 for Terran, $40 for Zerg, $40 for Protoss, that's probably fine. If it's $50/$50/$50 I think more people will be upset, but it only works out to be $10 more in total and it's really worth it so it's fine too.

I know everyone concerned about pricing wants $50/$30/$30 but this game will have been in development for 8 years when Terran comes out, it'll likely have an enormous marketing budget, and they'll be supporting it with patches and servers for 10+ years like the original, and putting up Tournament prize money to encourage people to pick it up as an e-Sport.

But the fact is, we still don't know what they plan to charge for the game.

 

[Zzoram]

And that's fine but anything less and this is a rip-off.

But we already know the Terran campaign is 26-30 missions, and the original Starcraft had around 30, so that's a non-issue already. Especially since they said there are going to be MORE pre-rendered cutscenes per campaign than in the past, and we all know how fracking awesome Blizzard CGI is, they have 109 people in their cinematics team.

 

[Zzoram]

The best games you'll be able to play in 2009, 2010, and 2011.

Fixed.

 

[Minsc]

More like 2009, 2011 and 2012.

What if Blizzard chops up Diablo 3 and sells each Act separately? They said Act I is pretty much done.

I'd welcome it, I think. Assuming it followed the same rules and they released a product as long as the previous, meaning Act 1 would be around 60-100 hours on the first playthrough, I'd prefer to start playing the new Diablo in the next year sometime, rather than 2011 or so.

Getting yearly/regular 60 hour story oriented gameplay additions to AAA games filled with great new content, CGI and new gameplay and balances is a good thing for me.

 

[TemplaerDude]

i think i'd rather take the long delay.

 

[Akia]

I'd welcome it, I think. Assuming it followed the same rules and they released a product as long as the previous, meaning Act 1 would be around 60-100 hours on the first playthrough, I'd prefer to start playing the new Diablo in the next year sometime, rather than 2011 or so.

Getting yearly/regular 60 hour story oriented gameplay additions to AAA games filled with great new content, CGI and new gameplay and balances is a good thing for me.

You are insane if you think Act 1 is going to last 60-100 hours. At your rate the whole game is going to be 240 - 400 hours long on the first playthrough. That's ridiculously long time to keep a player interested in your game.

I think each Act is going to be 30 hours of gameplay max on the first playthrough.

i think i'd rather take the long delay.

Same here. I'm down for a long delay and a higher price to compensate for how big this game is supposed to be.

 

[Lostconfused]

i think i'd rather take the long delay.

Thats ok, you can buy all 3 games in 2012. That way you would probably save some money instead of paying $150 upfront.

Same here. I'm down for a long delay and a higher price to compensate for how big this game is supposed to be.

I'll throw you in here as well then. No one is forcing you to buy it when it comes out.

 

[syllogism]

I'm not a Starcraft fan, but if this means much more content overall, I've no reason to complain.

 

[Minsc]

You are insane if you think Act 1 is going to last 60-100 hours. At your rate the whole game is going to be 240 - 400 hours long on the first playthrough. That's ridiculously long time to keep a player interested in your game.

Blizzard's done the 400 hour thing and then some. Granted it's not on a single playthrough, but this example doesn't work so well with Diablo because the difficulty structuring anyway.

If Act 1 was released standalone and was 80 hours on the first playthough, then Acts 2-4 followed in pace, you'd have a good 300 hour game, and that's just with one difficulty setting, which remember, Diablo has 3 of. So that's 900 hours for the completionist to finish, which is totally wrong of course, speed leveling/runs will make it like 30 hours, but even still.

There's an extra layer of difficulty in making the Normal, Hell, and Nightmare work with a staggered release, I'm not sure how they'd accomplish it properly, but getting Blizzard behind episodic releases in their non-MMO stuff I feel I'd enjoy.

 

[Zeliard]

This is why I'm looking forward to Dawn of War 2 quite a bit more.

 

[FLEABttn]

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. I hope you're wrong.

I'd disagree with him. You're probably more likely to get a Warcraft 4 than a WoW2.

This is why I'm looking forward to Dawn of War 2 quite a bit more.

Because Dawn of War 1 didn't have 3 semi-expansions. Right.

 

[Zzoram]

Here's the on-stage announcement, so everyone can stop misquoting each other.

http://www.wegame.com/watch/Starcraft_2_Trilogy_Announcement/

Watch it for yourself, then judge what he had to say.

 

[Zeliard]

Because Dawn of War 1 didn't have 3 semi-expansions. Right.

Terrible example. Dawn of War shipped with four races and there was a total of 9 races after all of the expansions.

 

[FLEABttn]

Terrible example. Dawn of War shipped with four races and there was a total of 9 races after all of the expansions.

Fine example. You didn't get to experience the full game unless you bought all 4 games. Nor did you get all 9 races in the first game.

 

[Zeliard]

Fine example. You didn't get to experience the full game unless you bought all 4 games.

Dawn of War was a full game. Four very distinct races isn't enough for you?

 

[Zzoram]

Terrible example. Dawn of War shipped with four races and there was a total of 9 races after all of the expansions.

Which is the worst thing you can do to multiplayer. How do you balance 9 races? You don't.

Also, what Blizzard looks to be doing with Starcraft II's campaign seems to be a significant upgrade over anything any RTS campaign has ever done.

 

[Zzoram]

Dawn of War was a full game. Four very distinct races isn't enough for you?

Starcraft II is a full game. You get 3 multiplayer races. You get a single campaign of significant length with branching paths.

 

[FLEABttn]

Dawn of War was a full game. Four very distinct races isn't enough for you?

You're not losing out on Zerg and Protoss in Starcraft Terran's multi-player. Starcraft Terran ships with one race single player in the first game. Starcraft 2 is basically taking the Dawn of War route. What's the problem?

 

[FoxSpirit]

The games didn't ship with a campaign for each race.

Okay, 9 races. And how many full blown campaigns?

 

[Zeliard]

Which is the worst thing you can do to multiplayer. How do you balance 9 races? You don't.

That doesn't really have anything to do with the point being made. We're talking about an RTS with only one playable single-player race. One of the biggest attractions to RTS games in general is the variety that comes with playing as different factions/races/etc. My only real disappointment with CoH was that you could only play the Allied campaign.

Starcraft II is a full game. You get 3 multiplayer races. You get a single campaign of significant length with branching paths.

The multiplayer is fine, but a lot of people aren't fans of multiplayer in general across all games (not just RTS) and enjoy single-player campaigns, especially when it comes to something as daunting as Starcraft's MP. They will be disappointed when they find out they can only play as Terran to start off. The emphasis on a strong campaign is nice, but is it worth it at the expense of the delay and future cost of the two other races?

 

[Yaweee]

You're not losing out on Zerg and Protoss in Starcraft Terran's multi-player. Starcraft Terran ships with one race single player in the first game. Starcraft 2 is basically taking the Dawn of War route. What's the problem?

There's also a mini-protoss campaign, and the ability to play as zerg in skirmish or custom single-player maps.

 

[Vish]

So after watching the video this news is easier to swallow.

I'm more of a mulitplayer guy anyway.

 

[Alex]

Brilliant math from a brilliant poster.

Refuting utter idiocy doesn't take much in the way of actual constructive dialogue. Especially with as fucking stupid as most of current day GAF is.

The stigma for game pricing and distribution this generation is stupid, from online services to retail. Regardless of the actual content and value, people are simply horrified if they don't get everything in one little (physical) box.

It seems perfectly reasonable to most dolts to launch utterly anemic games like Gears of War, Uncharted and Mass Effect, all charging 60 bucks for a 5-10 hour game. I guess you just need to make sure to announce your distribution plans for follow ups at a later date!

I'm largely unconcerned of the perception of value on a Blizzard game, really, I'm not holding my breath on being disappointed in terms of content value. It's a whole lot of bitching for nothing. I'd swear some of these people were picking quarters out of payphones.

Well, outside of forking over a few bankrolls for the next set of 5 hour long, linear, dumbed down console games I guess.

 

[Yaweee]

The stigma for game pricing and distribution this generation is stupid, from online services to retail. Regardless of the actual content and value, people are simply horrified if they don't get everything in one little (physical) box.

It seems perfectly reasonable to most dolts to launch utterly anemic games like Gears of War, Uncharted and Mass Effect, all charging 60 bucks for a 5-10 hour game. I guess you just need to make sure to announce your distribution plans for follow ups at a later date!

I'm largely unconcerned of the perception of value on a Blizzard game, really, I'm not holding my breath on being disappointed in terms of content value. It's a whole lot of bitching for nothing. I'd swear some of these people were picking quarters out of payphones.

Well, outside of forking over a few bankrolls for the next set of 5 hour long, linear, dumbed down console games I guess.

I agree completely. There are a bunch of arbitrary lines about what is a good value and what isn't, but those lines are rarely based off of quality or duration.

 

[Zzoram]

I have an uncle in the software industry, and when I tell him how much games cost he always seems so shocked. He tells me they are a steal compared to other software, and he's right.

PC game prices haven't gone up in forever, and they have actually gone down a bit in some cases. This is not in line with inflation, or increasing development costs, or decreasing sales.

 

[Mindlog]

I agree completely. There are a bunch of arbitrary lines about what is a good value and what isn't, but those lines are rarely based off of quality or duration.

rAmen.

Turn that into a brochure. I've purchased every single DoW and CoH release (except Soulstorm) and I'm more upbeat about this Blizzard approach. Primarily because I know Blizzard is not allowed to screw with their multiplayer too much.


and I'll STILL by Dawn of War 2 even though persistence in multi RTS idea can die in a muddy river for all i care

 

[dLMN8R]

So those so-called "fans" can't just be a little bit angry they won't be able to play as Zerg or Protoss untill later and will have to pay more to do so?

Once again, someone spending more time bitching and moaning about this than actually reading about it. You'll be able to play as any race with any version.

 

[Pachinko]

So seriously, some of you people would rather have starcraft 2 come out in 2012? Because that's how long it'll take before you get all 3 campaigns out.

My updated blizzard release schedule :
2008 - Wrath of the lich king 39.99
2009 summer - Starcraft 2 : Terrans 49.99-69.99
2010 spring- Diablo 3 The begining(the first 2 acts and 5 classes) 49.99-69.99
2010 fall- WOW expansion 3 39.99
2010 anytime- Starcraft 2 : terrans episodes download only 19.99
2011 winter(jan-mar)- Starcraft 2 : zerg rush kekekeke 39.99
2011 anytime before D3 Middle: Diablo 3 act 2.5 download only 9.99
2011 fall-Diablo 3 The middle(2 more acts + 2 new classes) 49.99
2012 first half- SC 2 zerg episodes download only 19.99
2012 second half - diablo 3 act 4.5 download only 9.99
2012 summer- Starcraft 2 : protoss 39.99
2012 fall - wow expansion 4(possibly download only graphical overhaul) 19.99
2013 winter - Diablo 3 the end (final act plus 3 new classes) 39.99
2013 anytime- SC2 protoss episodes download only 19.99
2013-2014 : Warcraft 4 or WOW 2 , perhaps even World of starcraft or world of diablo ??$

So there you go folks, a blizzard fan looking to buy all of these games will need a fat wallet.