Starcraft 2 is now a trilogy....
- Thread starter FloodsAreUponUS
- Start date
TheBlueWizard
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
Lame...is this how its going to be with Activision Blizzard? No thanks.
TBW
TBW
Chibi_Kaji
CAGiversary!
I'm with Chac on this. I'd rather it be split into 3 games than see a long delay.
What? Do they not make enough money from WOW that they have to charge people 3 times for 1 game? They know Starcraft 2 will sell so they are trying their damnest to milk this thing for all its worth. I had planned on getting this at launch to play online with other CAGs but now I think I'll wait for the inevitable bundle for $30.
TheBlueWizard
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
I guess I see it as breaking one game into three games just to get more money out of us.
It will probably be okay, it cost a lot to do the merger of the companies and they need to get it back. A lot of programs are getting cut (Ghostbusters and others). I see this as a way to just turn a game into a series just to milk more money out of the consumers.
TBW
It will probably be okay, it cost a lot to do the merger of the companies and they need to get it back. A lot of programs are getting cut (Ghostbusters and others). I see this as a way to just turn a game into a series just to milk more money out of the consumers.
TBW
Porumy
CAG Veteran
Assuming each game will cost 50$, then the final price will be 150$.
I hope that it won't amount to that price.
The fact that they also mentioned adding more to the units and multiplayer with each "expansion" sounds like they're shipping the core game stripped of some of the elements of the whole experience.
If they don't release it all at once then it would probably be similar to the original's expansion Brood War.
Then again, sucks to not have all the campaigns in one disk.
I hope that it won't amount to that price.
The fact that they also mentioned adding more to the units and multiplayer with each "expansion" sounds like they're shipping the core game stripped of some of the elements of the whole experience.
If they don't release it all at once then it would probably be similar to the original's expansion Brood War.
Then again, sucks to not have all the campaigns in one disk.
Rusty Ghia
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
There goes most of my interest in the game. Way to go, Blizzard. Caved into Activision's demands much?
I'll wait for the inevitable Starcraft 2 Battlechest for dirt cheap.
I'll wait for the inevitable Starcraft 2 Battlechest for dirt cheap.
cochesecochese
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
This seems like it could be an ok plan as long as the system requirements do not change with each expansion and each title is released for less than $50. $150 total is too much.
Jesus_S_Preston
CAGiversary!
That...sounds really dumb.
tehweezner
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 16 (100%)
this is great news to me. i loved the SC campaigns and i have no doubt the games will be quality like all Blizzard releases thus far.
ID2006
CAGiversary!
For me, there isn't enough news to decide whether this is good or bad. I'm not going to worry about the pricing issue until there is more information. Maybe it will be like Half-Life 2, with only the first game being at a higher price and subsequent games released at a lower price.
I'm not much of a traditional RTS gamer myself, having played Starcraft for the storyline and messing around with some of the more innovative UMS maps, so I think this could be great.
According to Joystiq, Blizzard has taken the story to a whole new level, with branching paths and interactive 3D cutscenes (sounds like a "choose your own adventure").
All in all, I like that they are trying something new to them, I'd like to know a bit more about how the 3 stories connect this time, but for the most part I'm more excited because of this news.
I'm not much of a traditional RTS gamer myself, having played Starcraft for the storyline and messing around with some of the more innovative UMS maps, so I think this could be great.
According to Joystiq, Blizzard has taken the story to a whole new level, with branching paths and interactive 3D cutscenes (sounds like a "choose your own adventure").
All in all, I like that they are trying something new to them, I'd like to know a bit more about how the 3 stories connect this time, but for the most part I'm more excited because of this news.
Salamando3000
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
I can understand the "why" of this, but isn't something like this just asking, nay, begging people to pirate it? It seems like many people that know what they're doing would buy the first one for multiplayer, and pirate the rest as they come out. Don't get me wrong, I'll probably pick up the first one on release day. Just seems to me that this could so easily backfire if placed at the wrong price point.
basilofbkrst
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
If I can play multiplayer with any race from the first game, and it's just the single player that limits you, that'll be one thing. However, if it's $50 a piece and I can't player the other races with my friends then I'm punching anyone I meet who likes this idea because they were to big a bitch to wait in the face.
[quote name='FloodsAreUponUS']Blizzard triple dipping.
Blizzard added that the plans for the multiplayer component are unchanged by the splitting of the campaigns. However, some units will now be unique to the campaigns and will not be playable in multiplayer.
[/QUOTE]
I don't see any reason why they have to do this. Unless they plan to release a patch to let all units be available once all three versions are out, they're gimping the mp for those who can't/won't get the other two version.
Edit: I just read it again. Are they just saying that mp will be losing these unique units all together? Meaning they're never be there no matter what. If so, disregard my comments on top.
Blizzard added that the plans for the multiplayer component are unchanged by the splitting of the campaigns. However, some units will now be unique to the campaigns and will not be playable in multiplayer.
[/QUOTE]
I don't see any reason why they have to do this. Unless they plan to release a patch to let all units be available once all three versions are out, they're gimping the mp for those who can't/won't get the other two version.
Edit: I just read it again. Are they just saying that mp will be losing these unique units all together? Meaning they're never be there no matter what. If so, disregard my comments on top.
[quote name='winterice']I don't see any reason why they have to do this. Unless they plan to release a patch to let all units be available once all three versions are out, they're gimping the mp for those who can't/won't get the other two version.[/QUOTE]
Well if they're focusing this much on single player campaigns, there's probably going to be some unstoppable, God-tier war machine you can use in single player that just wouldn't make sense in a multiplayer setting.
Well if they're focusing this much on single player campaigns, there's probably going to be some unstoppable, God-tier war machine you can use in single player that just wouldn't make sense in a multiplayer setting.
blueshinra
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
No objections here. The main story campaign is what I loved best about StarCraft and Brood War, and so long as SCII's expansions are reasonably priced, I'll be picking 'em up.
FloodsAreUponUS
Banned
I dont think people get it. For what you should pay for SC2, you have to pay three times for it.
This is activision's doing.
This is activision's doing.
I don't think you get it. It sounds like Blizzard's splitting it up into 3 games, but adding a lot more stuff than they would've had otherwise. 3 campaigns with different gameplay styles? That's not something they'd even attempt if there was only one game. It's way too ambitious for a single release. And when you're still getting like 30 missions per game, that's hardly a rip-off, unless you really want to insist that you would've gotten 90 missions in a single game Starcraft II prior to mean-ol' Activision taking charge.
Chances are that even with the increased content per release, it will be less content per release compared to if it had been one release. This equates to less content per release at the same cost per release(I assume for now). I mean shit, you are already getting the game engine and unit balances in the first release. That makes up the majority of this type of game. Besides, if they are going to split it up, they better 
ing add more stuff. At least the know they can't get away with that level of BS.
Can't good games try something ambitious without making their game into three games? Seriously.
I'm on the side that this is BS right now. Since when did Blizzard care about delaying their games? Blizzard's rule has been," When it's ready, it's ready." They are known to take a long time with their games and so far it hasn't been too big of a concern.
ing add more stuff. At least the know they can't get away with that level of BS. Can't good games try something ambitious without making their game into three games? Seriously.
I'm on the side that this is BS right now. Since when did Blizzard care about delaying their games? Blizzard's rule has been," When it's ready, it's ready." They are known to take a long time with their games and so far it hasn't been too big of a concern.
FloodsAreUponUS
Banned
[quote name='Chacrana']I don't think you get it. It sounds like Blizzard's splitting it up into 3 games, but adding a lot more stuff than they would've had otherwise. 3 campaigns with different gameplay styles? That's not something they'd even attempt if there was only one game. It's way too ambitious for a single release. And when you're still getting like 30 missions per game, that's hardly a rip-off, unless you really want to insist that you would've gotten 90 missions in a single game Starcraft II prior to mean-ol' Activision taking charge.[/quote]
No you don't seem to get it. Starcraft 2 was originally planned, and Starcraft 1 had three races that played completely different from each other. Delay the regular game, and don't over consumers with your lies about needing to split up the campaign. What's next Diablo 3 being split into 5 games, one for each class?
No you don't seem to get it. Starcraft 2 was originally planned, and Starcraft 1 had three races that played completely different from each other. Delay the regular game, and don't
over consumers with your lies about needing to split up the campaign. What's next Diablo 3 being split into 5 games, one for each class?
[quote name='FloodsAreUponUS']No you don't seem to get it. Starcraft 2 was originally planned, and Starcraft 1 had three races that played completely different from each other. Delay the regular game, and don't over consumers with your lies about needing to split up the campaign. What's next Diablo 3 being split into 5 games, one for each class?[/QUOTE]
Oh ho! I don't get it now? What a cunning insight!
By campaigns that play differently, I meant that Blizzard's trying to incorporate RPG elements into one of the campaigns, one of the games is supposed to have branching paths, etc. - it's pretty significant stuff. And again, you're complaining about them not including the ridiculous 90 or so missions in one game. That's just stupid.
over consumers with your lies about needing to split up the campaign. What's next Diablo 3 being split into 5 games, one for each class?[/QUOTE]Oh ho! I don't get it now? What a cunning insight!
By campaigns that play differently, I meant that Blizzard's trying to incorporate RPG elements into one of the campaigns, one of the games is supposed to have branching paths, etc. - it's pretty significant stuff. And again, you're complaining about them not including the ridiculous 90 or so missions in one game. That's just stupid.
Absent more information I'm not sure how I feel about this.
Cost?
How long are the campaigns? Do the plots really branch, or will there be merely token differences?
Release schedule?
Despite what they say, could they it all in one box without further delay if they wanted to? If not, how much of a delay?
Did this decision enter planning stages before or after the merger?
What the hell are "RPG Elements?"
Is Kerrigan still queen bitch of the universe?
Trying questions.
Cost?
How long are the campaigns? Do the plots really branch, or will there be merely token differences?
Release schedule?
Despite what they say, could they it all in one box without further delay if they wanted to? If not, how much of a delay?
Did this decision enter planning stages before or after the merger?
What the hell are "RPG Elements?"
Is Kerrigan still queen bitch of the universe?
Trying questions.
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
that! This is basically blizzard saying we want a larger wad of cash so here's some minor improvements, I don't want "enhanced" content, I don't want more cinematics, I don't want another half dozen filler missions added to every campaign. I want starcraft 2 with 3 playable races for a $50 pricetag and if I don't get it, there are tons of other RTS games these days.
[quote name='zionoverfire'] that! This is basically blizzard saying we want a larger wad of cash so here's some minor improvements, I don't want "enhanced" content, I don't want more cinematics, I don't want another half dozen filler missions added to every campaign.
I want starcraft 2 with 3 playable races for a $50 pricetag and if I don't get it, there are tons of other RTS games these days.[/QUOTE]
Maybe, I am missing something, but all three races will be playable in multiplayer*. It is the single player campaign that will be different.
Why not give Blizzard the benefit of the doubt? They are one of the most fan-centric developers around. With only this information, there is no point in jumping to conclusions. It seems like people are getting mad, without knowing any of the facts.
*Source: http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/10/blizzcon-2008-starcraft-ii-gameplay-panel-notes/
that! This is basically blizzard saying we want a larger wad of cash so here's some minor improvements, I don't want "enhanced" content, I don't want more cinematics, I don't want another half dozen filler missions added to every campaign. I want starcraft 2 with 3 playable races for a $50 pricetag and if I don't get it, there are tons of other RTS games these days.[/QUOTE]
Maybe, I am missing something, but all three races will be playable in multiplayer*. It is the single player campaign that will be different.
Why not give Blizzard the benefit of the doubt? They are one of the most fan-centric developers around. With only this information, there is no point in jumping to conclusions. It seems like people are getting mad, without knowing any of the facts.
*Source: http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/10/blizzcon-2008-starcraft-ii-gameplay-panel-notes/
blueshinra
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
[quote name='dwhelan']Why not give Blizzard the benefit of the doubt? They are one of the most fan-centric developers around.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Blizzard is very much in touch with their fanbase and makes sure gamers get their money's worth with each new game (and expansion), so I doubt they'd openly try to screw people over. Let's wait for more details before we jump down their throats.
Exactly. Blizzard is very much in touch with their fanbase and makes sure gamers get their money's worth with each new game (and expansion), so I doubt they'd openly try to screw people over. Let's wait for more details before we jump down their throats.
darkcecil32
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
After the acquisition, I fear that the past history of Blizzard may be rendered moot and they'll be forced into screwing over, err, tapping into their rabid fan-base.
A = Actvision
B = Blizzard
C = The Anti-Christ.
A=B, A=C, therefore by the transitive property, B = C. Activision is slowly but surely on its way to becoming the next Electronic Arts...
However, I concur that there isn't enough information out to make a definitive conclusion just yet. Will have to see just how truly differently the 3 iterations play out upon their respective releases.
A = Actvision
B = Blizzard
C = The Anti-Christ.
A=B, A=C, therefore by the transitive property, B = C. Activision is slowly but surely on its way to becoming the next Electronic Arts...
However, I concur that there isn't enough information out to make a definitive conclusion just yet. Will have to see just how truly differently the 3 iterations play out upon their respective releases.
udabenshen
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
I will hold my judgement until I learn of the price of each game. If the terran campaign is 40 and the rest are 30 each it is reasonable. All you need is one of them for multiplayer. This is going to be a pricey game though, seeing how many missions they are offering (over 90).
[quote name='darkcecil32']After the acquisition, I fear that the past history of Blizzard may be rendered moot and they'll be forced into screwing over, err, tapping into their rabid fan-base.
A = Actvision
B = Blizzard
C = The Anti-Christ.
A=B, A=C, therefore by the transitive property, B = C. Activision is slowly but surely on its way to becoming the next Electronic Arts...
[/QUOTE]
You know this is a false argument based on incorrect premises, right? I've forgotten most of the proper names from my college class on the matter, but I know you have to go if A=B, B=C, THEN A=C. That's the transitive property - the following premise has to take the conclusion from the preceding one and start with it - it can't start with a different object/assumption.
You can't have the first thing equal two outcomes and have the third become it also.
Example:
Apples that are bad aren't fresh. (A is B)
Apples that are in a basket are good. (A is C)
Therefore, apples in a basket that are good are bad and not fresh. (C is B)
You can have apples in a basket that are good OR bad. That secondary condition of being in a basket is unaffected by the previous state of the apples.
Corrected example:
Apples are in a basket. (A is B)
Things in a basket are fresh. (B is C)
Therefore, apples in a basket are fresh. (A is C).
Here you are saying that apples are in a basket, and go on to say that is a sign of them being fresh. This follows correctly.
Want to make it about Activision?
Blizzard is now part of Activision. (B is A)
Acitvision is a piece of shit. (A is S)
Therefore, Blizzard is now part of a piece of shit. (B is S).
Basically the last letter has to imply some new letter and you can chain 'em together.
A = Actvision
B = Blizzard
C = The Anti-Christ.
A=B, A=C, therefore by the transitive property, B = C. Activision is slowly but surely on its way to becoming the next Electronic Arts...
[/QUOTE]
You know this is a false argument based on incorrect premises, right? I've forgotten most of the proper names from my college class on the matter, but I know you have to go if A=B, B=C, THEN A=C. That's the transitive property - the following premise has to take the conclusion from the preceding one and start with it - it can't start with a different object/assumption.
You can't have the first thing equal two outcomes and have the third become it also.
Example:
Apples that are bad aren't fresh. (A is B)
Apples that are in a basket are good. (A is C)
Therefore, apples in a basket that are good are bad and not fresh. (C is B)
You can have apples in a basket that are good OR bad. That secondary condition of being in a basket is unaffected by the previous state of the apples.
Corrected example:
Apples are in a basket. (A is B)
Things in a basket are fresh. (B is C)
Therefore, apples in a basket are fresh. (A is C).
Here you are saying that apples are in a basket, and go on to say that is a sign of them being fresh. This follows correctly.
Want to make it about Activision?
Blizzard is now part of Activision. (B is A)
Acitvision is a piece of shit. (A is S)
Therefore, Blizzard is now part of a piece of shit. (B is S).
Basically the last letter has to imply some new letter and you can chain 'em together.
[quote name='Strell']
Want to make it about Activision?
Blizzard is now part of Activision. (B is A)
Acitvision is a piece of shit. (A is S)
Therefore, Blizzard is now part of a piece of shit. (B is S).
Basically the last letter has to imply some new letter and you can chain 'em together.[/quote]You really posted that for posterity.. I took Logic 101 too, but I didn't need do perform hypothetical syllogism to get the guy's point
Want to make it about Activision?
Blizzard is now part of Activision. (B is A)
Acitvision is a piece of shit. (A is S)
Therefore, Blizzard is now part of a piece of shit. (B is S).
Basically the last letter has to imply some new letter and you can chain 'em together.[/quote]You really posted that for posterity.. I took Logic 101 too, but I didn't need do perform hypothetical syllogism to get the guy's point
If it speed up it's release, I'm for it. It's better then waiting for another 3 years. I still don't understand the complaint. Is it the three different games? Hmm... people are fine paying for two games: Starcraft(original) and it's expansion, Brood Wars. Many people think they got their money worth. But they do mind, paying for that one extra game? I though the extra content, more cinematic, a more fleshed out story and quicker release date per game, justified that one extra expansion pack. Since when are expansions full price games? I thought they were in $30-$40 price range.
Strange. People throw a fit at this, but they don't mind Pokemon doing the exact same thing with far less content.
Strange. People throw a fit at this, but they don't mind Pokemon doing the exact same thing with far less content.
blueshinra
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
[quote name='heavyd853']Wasn't part of the acquisition deal that Blizzard could override Activision's decisions or something like that?[/QUOTE]
Something like that, yes. Under the terms of the merger, Blizzard remains as independent as they were under Vivendi.
Speaking of which, people tend to forget that the merger was between Activision and Vivendi Games, Blizzard's old parent company, not Blizzard itself.
Something like that, yes. Under the terms of the merger, Blizzard remains as independent as they were under Vivendi.
Speaking of which, people tend to forget that the merger was between Activision and Vivendi Games, Blizzard's old parent company, not Blizzard itself.
I think the biggest issue, and only issue, is the price.
If Blizzard tries to pull a fast one and split up and charge $50 each... then I'm going to be a bit miffed.... which will definately wait for a sale price to hit...
but if it's like $40, then two $30s later.... that's not too bad, depending on the length of game and quaility.
If Blizzard tries to pull a fast one and split up and charge $50 each... then I'm going to be a bit miffed.... which will definately wait for a sale price to hit...
but if it's like $40, then two $30s later.... that's not too bad, depending on the length of game and quaility.
FloodsAreUponUS
Banned
It will be 50,40,40.
Just Delay the Entire Game Blizzard, and keep it as one game.
Whats next splitting diablo 3 into 5 games?
Splitting the next WoW into 10 games?
I will wait for all of them to be 20 bucks now. Blizzard can go royally themselves. They have not made anything worthy of my interest since 2003.
Just Delay the Entire Game Blizzard, and keep it as one game.
Whats next splitting diablo 3 into 5 games?
Splitting the next WoW into 10 games?
I will wait for all of them to be 20 bucks now. Blizzard can go royally
themselves. They have not made anything worthy of my interest since 2003.[quote name='FloodsAreUponUS']It will be 50,40,40.
Just Delay the Entire Game Blizzard, and keep it as one game.
Whats next splitting diablo 3 into 5 games?
Splitting the next WoW into 10 games?
I will wait for all of them to be 20 bucks now. Blizzard can go royally themselves. They have not made anything worthy of my interest since 2003.[/QUOTE]
But delaying the project would just see an increase in the final project price. Blizzard would still need to pay for the assets and resources, none of that would change over the length of the project. If they have come to this decision based on development cost, you could end up with a game that exceeds 150 dollars. If they spread it out over time and have capital coming in to offset project costs, then they can show the fans the savings.
Honestly Floods, it just sounds like you are mad at Blizzard for going down the MMO path. I know MMOs are not traditionally CAG games, but a developer is allowed to change.
Just Delay the Entire Game Blizzard, and keep it as one game.
Whats next splitting diablo 3 into 5 games?
Splitting the next WoW into 10 games?
I will wait for all of them to be 20 bucks now. Blizzard can go royally
themselves. They have not made anything worthy of my interest since 2003.[/QUOTE]But delaying the project would just see an increase in the final project price. Blizzard would still need to pay for the assets and resources, none of that would change over the length of the project. If they have come to this decision based on development cost, you could end up with a game that exceeds 150 dollars. If they spread it out over time and have capital coming in to offset project costs, then they can show the fans the savings.
Honestly Floods, it just sounds like you are mad at Blizzard for going down the MMO path. I know MMOs are not traditionally CAG games, but a developer is allowed to change.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
I think the people complaining aren't taking into account the fact that this is Blizzard, not EA Games.
More cinematics, better story? Awesome sign me up. Problem with the starcraft expansion missions was they skimped on the cutscenes. I love me the cutscenes.
More cinematics, better story? Awesome sign me up. Problem with the starcraft expansion missions was they skimped on the cutscenes. I love me the cutscenes.
FloodsAreUponUS
Banned
[quote name='dwhelan']But delaying the project would just see an increase in the final project price. Blizzard would still need to pay for the assets and resources, none of that would change over the length of the project. If they have come to this decision based on development cost, you could end up with a game that exceeds 150 dollars. If they spread it out over time and have capital coming in to offset project costs, then they can show the fans the savings.
Honestly Floods, it just sounds like you are mad at Blizzard for going down the MMO path. I know MMOs are not traditionally CAG games, but a developer is allowed to change.[/quote]
Its not like they should have to worry about costs. They have WOW.
Honestly Floods, it just sounds like you are mad at Blizzard for going down the MMO path. I know MMOs are not traditionally CAG games, but a developer is allowed to change.[/quote]
Its not like they should have to worry about costs. They have WOW.
[quote name='dwhelan']But delaying the project would just see an increase in the final project price. Blizzard would still need to pay for the assets and resources, none of that would change over the length of the project. If they have come to this decision based on development cost, you could end up with a game that exceeds 150 dollars. If they spread it out over time and have capital coming in to offset project costs, then they can show the fans the savings.
Honestly Floods, it just sounds like you are mad at Blizzard for going down the MMO path. I know MMOs are not traditionally CAG games, but a developer is allowed to change.[/QUOTE]
But, couldn't you argue that a majority of the developmental cost is done once the first part of the game is released? I don't see them working on the game engine itself after that first release. From what I understand, the second and third games are just basically story scenarios for their respective race. I may be wrong, but I don't think the development cost of the second and third game is going to be the same has the first one. It should be cheaper since the game engine is done and so are any balancing the game needs.
Honestly Floods, it just sounds like you are mad at Blizzard for going down the MMO path. I know MMOs are not traditionally CAG games, but a developer is allowed to change.[/QUOTE]
But, couldn't you argue that a majority of the developmental cost is done once the first part of the game is released? I don't see them working on the game engine itself after that first release. From what I understand, the second and third games are just basically story scenarios for their respective race. I may be wrong, but I don't think the development cost of the second and third game is going to be the same has the first one. It should be cheaper since the game engine is done and so are any balancing the game needs.
corrosivefrost
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 45 (100%)
[quote name='Chibi_Kaji']I'm with Chac on this. I'd rather it be split into 3 games than see a long delay.[/QUOTE]
Pffft. And you can pay full retail for each full game. This is the fault of the WoW players... next thing you know, you'll need to pay subscription fees for battle.net (if you don't already).
Pffft. And you can pay full retail for each full game. This is the fault of the WoW players... next thing you know, you'll need to pay subscription fees for battle.net (if you don't already).
corrosivefrost
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 45 (100%)
[quote name='dwhelan']But delaying the project would just see an increase in the final project price. Blizzard would still need to pay for the assets and resources, none of that would change over the length of the project. If they have come to this decision based on development cost, you could end up with a game that exceeds 150 dollars. If they spread it out over time and have capital coming in to offset project costs, then they can show the fans the savings.
Honestly Floods, it just sounds like you are mad at Blizzard for going down the MMO path. I know MMOs are not traditionally CAG games, but a developer is allowed to change.[/QUOTE]
Say they charge $39.99 for each part of the trilogy -- you're paying $120 for the full game rather than $59.99 or whatever standard PC game retail is these days. Since when does development cost dictate the final price -- if this were the case, some console games would be over $100 -- but it doesn't happen.
Honestly Floods, it just sounds like you are mad at Blizzard for going down the MMO path. I know MMOs are not traditionally CAG games, but a developer is allowed to change.[/QUOTE]
Say they charge $39.99 for each part of the trilogy -- you're paying $120 for the full game rather than $59.99 or whatever standard PC game retail is these days. Since when does development cost dictate the final price -- if this were the case, some console games would be over $100 -- but it doesn't happen.
[quote name='winterice']But, couldn't you argue that a majority of the developmental cost is done once the first part of the game is released? I don't see them working on the game engine itself after that first release. From what I understand, the second and third games are just basically story scenarios for their respective race. I may be wrong, but I don't think the development cost of the second and third game is going to be the same has the first one. It should be cheaper since the game engine is done and so are any balancing the game needs.[/QUOTE]
We just don't know. All that has spoken about is the Zerg game will have RPG elements (possibly like Heroes from WC3) so there is potential for heavy modification of game, post engine development. But in addition, you have testing, balancing, art/model development, engine updates. I doubt one $50 dollar purchase for the Human campaign (first release) will recover the development cost.
As for balancing, new units are introduced in each game (according to my sited sources above), so balancing will always be an issue.
Also, no business should be required to stand on one tower for success to accept loses on other (selling Starcraft cheaply because WOW is a success). There are many hidden costs for MMOs, that I doubt any of us really have a total perspective on.
We just don't know. All that has spoken about is the Zerg game will have RPG elements (possibly like Heroes from WC3) so there is potential for heavy modification of game, post engine development. But in addition, you have testing, balancing, art/model development, engine updates. I doubt one $50 dollar purchase for the Human campaign (first release) will recover the development cost.
As for balancing, new units are introduced in each game (according to my sited sources above), so balancing will always be an issue.
Also, no business should be required to stand on one tower for success to accept loses on other (selling Starcraft cheaply because WOW is a success). There are many hidden costs for MMOs, that I doubt any of us really have a total perspective on.
[quote name='corrosivefrost']Say they charge $39.99 for each part of the trilogy -- you're paying $120 for the full game rather than $59.99 or whatever standard PC game retail is these days. Since when does development cost dictate the final price -- if this were the case, some console games would be over $100 -- but it doesn't happen.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that making the assumption that all Blizzard is doing, is dividing one full game and charging three times. If that is the case, I will be on the side of the consumer calling Bullshit. But, I truly do not believe that will happen.
But at this time, I am choosing to believe that this is not the plane. Also PC development has larger costs associated with development than console development. Think about all of the different configurations that you need to test and build for. Blizzard has proven in the past, to be hardware adaptive, so that high end and low end pc can both play the product, as well as both PC and Mac.
As for an example where a console game, with all of its content, costing more then the standard retail cost
is Elder Scrolls 4 - Oblivion. Oblivion ($60) + Knight of the Nine ($10) + Shivering Isles ($30) = $100 and that is without all of the smaller download packets.
Isn't that making the assumption that all Blizzard is doing, is dividing one full game and charging three times. If that is the case, I will be on the side of the consumer calling Bullshit. But, I truly do not believe that will happen.
But at this time, I am choosing to believe that this is not the plane. Also PC development has larger costs associated with development than console development. Think about all of the different configurations that you need to test and build for. Blizzard has proven in the past, to be hardware adaptive, so that high end and low end pc can both play the product, as well as both PC and Mac.
As for an example where a console game, with all of its content, costing more then the standard retail cost
is Elder Scrolls 4 - Oblivion. Oblivion ($60) + Knight of the Nine ($10) + Shivering Isles ($30) = $100 and that is without all of the smaller download packets.
bread's done