$60 justified for Starcraft 2? (poll)

When SC2's price 60$ was annonced, I said that it was ok and there was soo much value for me even if it was selling for 70$ I would still buy it because it's worth it....

But then they said they will release 2 campaigns -.- (aka. expansions with units) which means that I cannot play online after they release thier 1st expansion online, so I thought about it and I was like: What the hell 60$ every a year or a year an a half isnt soo bad for all the fun...and it sounded right.

But then they annonced they aren't goin to release the chat channels and that it will be coming in a patch (because they wanted to implement CHAT 2.0, wtf ???)I was really really ANNOYED and pissed off.................

PS. I am soo pathetic that I'd probably still get the game on the release date

I think I'll buy it for the custom games and singleplayer. Can't wait to see what kind of maps emerge from the user community - hopefully there will be people to play them online for many years to come and I definitely think it's worth not missing out on. Also want to know what happens next in the story.

As for the core multiplayer - I think I'll pass on that. As a casual gamer I find the core multiplayer game way too micro-intensive for my liking.

Its all good now to say they'll be appropriately priced as expansions. Well what if they're not? biggest_loser

But then they said they will release 2 campaigns -.- (aka. expansions with units) which means that I cannot play online after they release thier 1st expansion online

Amoorz

if there is a source for this i would really like to get a link. i've heard this over and over again, that new units will affect multiplayer. from the press releases, blueposts and blizzcast all i can tell is that they will NOT affect multiplayer, and are singleplayer-only units. maybe im missing something here?

Its fun to see how every pc gamer was furious about 60$ MW2 pirce , but when its Blizard - its ok ? Thts just nonsense... Yes , game may and will probably be good and long played , but it still dont change the fact that Bliz is milking every single peny coz of the hype for the game...

I be payin cuz i gotz the moneyz

[spoiler] but seriously, im ok with the price :P [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"][QUOTE="FelipeInside"] There's no monthly fee...StopThePresses

Warcraft III was also $60 and it was well worth it.RichardStallman

No. $60 is too much for any game, especially for one that doesn't provide a single player for all of the races. Blizzard is learning some tricks of the trade from its new big brother Activision.

Its fun to see how every pc gamer was furious about 60$ MW2 pirce , but when its Blizard - its ok ? Thts just nonsense... Yes , game may and will probably be good and long played , but it still dont change the fact that Bliz is milking every single peny coz of the hype for the game...

kazakauskas

I wasn't planning on buying the game, but after playing the beta I can honestly say I will more than likely buy it within the first week that it comes out. It's definitely worth the $60

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"]

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"] Just satirizing the kids who think that Starcraft 2 costs the equivalent of 3 full games and has a subscription fee. The two expansions are going to be priced appropriately, so it won't cost $180 as some people would like to believe. Expect to pay $140 at most, which is decent for a game and two stand-alone expansions. It's stupid that Starcraft 2 costs $60 (price gouging), but it's one of those few games I'll bite the bullet for. But if $60 starts becoming the rule and not the exception, such publishers/developers won't be seeing a dime of my money.KHAndAnime

Its fun to see how every pc gamer was furious about 60$ MW2 pirce , but when its Blizard - its ok ? Thts just nonsense... Yes , game may and will probably be good and long played , but it still dont change the fact that Bliz is milking every single peny coz of the hype for the game...

kazakauskas

Yea it suck for us consumers, but video games prices do need to catch up to inflation and the fact that video games are more expensive to make. Now if a game has very little content/is just simple crap, then $60 is easily out of the question.

Meh, i never liked Starcraft. Now D3 is another Story, but i wouldn't pay $60 for it.

I'd pay $100 for each of the episodes. But then again, I can afford it.

I won't pay $60 for it on release. I'll wait for it to drop to $50 minimum and even then it depends on the length of the campaign.

Yes i'll gladly pay 60 bucks for it, with the robust ladder system and hundreds of custom maps i'll be playing this gem for the next 6-10 years just like warcraft III and starcraft. :)

[QUOTE="DanielDust"]

Simply faceplam there isn't anything else to tell you, nobody would be able to tell you anything else, just facepalm...wildemu

I would be facepalming also if I were averaging 4+ hours of warcraft a day lmao.

Nope you wouldn't, but you would if you'd see somebody that after quite a few posts they say something like "so what're you saying....I can't fully enjoy Starcraft 2 when it's released". No man you can't, but you should seriously enjoy some google, because everytime see a SC 2 discussion there's always people like you and your question will only result in a circular conversation, you will always act surprise without actually anything and without actually search for information for yourself.....lmao :/

If it's hard here, the game will cost 60$, the first part of it will have the Terran campaign (and it has around 30 missions, it's as big as a full game) and it also has a mini Protoss campaign (4-6 missions) and it will have the entire multiplayer and mod tools, yes you would be able to enjoy the game :roll:, the next game will feature the Zerg campaign (enough content for a full game, again 30 missions) with some new mp units and lastly the Protoss campaign (again 30 missions) and some new mp units.

If you can't wnjoy a "full" Terran game or the full multiplayer, depending on what you prefer, then you either don't care about it anyway or you aren't into games anymore.

[QUOTE="envybianchi"]

I will wait until Starcraft II Battlechest edition comes out. I'm not paying freaking $180 for ONE game that is split into three. I'd understand if it was one whole game & 2 alternate expansions but that's not even it. Sure anyone can argue, but but but.... there's more content! Sure more levels & gameplay but no matter how you look at it, it's still one game split into three.

StopThePresses

It is a full game when all 3 factions are combined. How is it a different game? Are you serious? All 3 factions are the same (gamplay & etc.) with the exception of the story because of the different factions which in the end coincides together in the end so it's eventually its the same. Everything else is still the same in the end. No matter how you try to justify it, it is still ONE game split into THREE but hey spend your money anyway you want. I'm not here to tell you how to spend your money in an efficient & smart way. Defend all you want but you are still spending $180 for ONE game which is split into three. Don't get me wrong but if it was an actual factual expansion of all 3 factions, I wouldn't have a problem but that's not even the case.

Do understand that I'm not knocking Blizzard or their games because my very 1st PC game was Warcraft 1 & I've grown up with all of Blizzard's games. I love them all & I look forward to all of them BUT I'm not gonna spend an exorbitant amount of money on a game that's been split into three, regardless of how much campaigns they have pumped in for single player.

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"][QUOTE="envybianchi"]

I will wait until Starcraft II Battlechest edition comes out. I'm not paying freaking $180 for ONE game that is split into three. I'd understand if it was one whole game & 2 alternate expansions but that's not even it. Sure anyone can argue, but but but.... there's more content! Sure more levels & gameplay but no matter how you look at it, it's still one game split into three.

envybianchi

It is a full game when all 3 factions are combined. How is it a different game? Are you serious? All 3 factions are the same (gamplay & etc.) with the exception of the story because of the different factions which in the end coincides together in the end so it's eventually its the same. Everything else is still the same in the end. No matter how you try to justify it, it is still ONE game split into THREE but hey spend your money anyway you want. I'm not here to tell you how to spend your money in an efficient & smart way. Defend all you want but you are still spending $180 for ONE game which is split into three. Don't get me wrong but if it was an actual factual expansion of all 3 factions, I wouldn't have a problem but that's not even the case.

Do understand that I'm not knocking Blizzard or their games because my very 1st PC game was Warcraft 1 & I've grown up with all of Blizzard's games. I love them all & I look forward to all of them BUT I'm not gonna spend an exorbitant amount of money on a game that's been split into three, regardless of how much campaigns they have pumped in for single player.

Let me get this straight you consider 30+5 missions for a faction + a mini Protoss campaign as an incomplete game (same as SC1 only longer) but you wouldn't consider it incomplete if you got 30 missions in total having like 10 missions per faction then you would get the expansion and receive another 30 missions, 10 for every faction, then you buy another expansion and receive 30 missions that are 10 for each faction, finalizing each campaign with 30 missions each + some bonus missions?

The problem here is not that you consider it an incomplete game, it's that you can't think out of the box, they changed the typical formula "hey I give you a few missions for each faction in every game/expansion we release", I personally hated that formula, and they changed it to "hey guys we're giving you the entire game for each faction, no more cliffhangers and no more waiting years to find out what happens in the end".

60$:?

There are many places that you can pre-order Starcraft 2 for 40$.

I would be fine with $60 if it was the entire game...but it's not, it's only one of three parts. Even if the next two are $30, that means it's $120 for the complete game. So no, I'm not happy with this and I won't buy it.krazyorange

Most people here is just too simple minded to understand the value something has if you don't slam it in their face.

60$ has always been Blizzard games launch price. And it has always been well worth it.

I say, let's not care about people whining about it - in the end, they will regret following this stupid hatewagon once they realize how much they have lost for their ignorance ;)

Explanations have already been given - you people whining are just hypocrites.

Mograine

[QUOTE="krazyorange"]I would be fine with $60 if it was the entire game...but it's not, it's only one of three parts. Even if the next two are $30, that means it's $120 for the complete game. So no, I'm not happy with this and I won't buy it.dakan45

[QUOTE="Mograine"]

Most people here is just too simple minded to understand the value something has if you don't slam it in their face.

60$ has always been Blizzard games launch price. And it has always been well worth it.

I say, let's not care about people whining about it - in the end, they will regret following this stupid hatewagon once they realize how much they have lost for their ignorance ;)

Explanations have already been given - you people whining are just hypocrites.

wizdom

Pass. Im tired of PC games costing the same as consoles when publishers dont need to pay a dime to put out a game on the PC. Unlike consoles (XBOX, Wii, PS3) that get $12 from every sale... that $12 goes right in the publishers pocket on a PC sale.

[QUOTE="wizdom"]

[QUOTE="Mograine"]

Most people here is just too simple minded to understand the value something has if you don't slam it in their face.

60$ has always been Blizzard games launch price. And it has always been well worth it.

I say, let's not care about people whining about it - in the end, they will regret following this stupid hatewagon once they realize how much they have lost for their ignorance ;)

Explanations have already been given - you people whining are just hypocrites.

k0r3aN_pR1d3

$60 for 1/3 of a game, pass. Only way they can redeem themselves is if the next two are $20.Sins-of-Mosin

I remembered buying Warcraft III for 60 bucks back then the same goes for Diablo 2. So for me it's not a surprise that SC2 will be priced the same also, i know the content will be very well worth it.

60 bucks is a already bargain for a game that will be supported for several years and talk about the custom maps that will definitely prolong it's lifespan.

Your kidding right? Blizzard games have never sold for 60 bucks new when they came out in the u.s., wth are you talking about? You sound like a Blizzard exec. making up excuses for them.

wizdom

Nope, what the hell are YOU talking about? Blizzard games ALWAYS retailed at 60$.

You sound like a Blizzard hater making up excuses against them. Get your facts straight, mon.

[QUOTE="dakan45"][QUOTE="krazyorange"]I would be fine with $60 if it was the entire game...but it's not, it's only one of three parts. Even if the next two are $30, that means it's $120 for the complete game. So no, I'm not happy with this and I won't buy it.wizdom

[QUOTE="Mograine"]

Most people here is just too simple minded to understand the value something has if you don't slam it in their face.

60$ has always been Blizzard games launch price. And it has always been well worth it.

I say, let's not care about people whining about it - in the end, they will regret following this stupid hatewagon once they realize how much they have lost for their ignorance ;)

Explanations have already been given - you people whining are just hypocrites.

wizdom

Well depends on how you see it, for example thinking that each one worths its full price because of diffirent compaigns and additional stuff seems more like dreaming to me, since quality>quanity and i dont believe any developer outhere can make multiple compaigns with the same amount of quality as their main compaign.dakan45

Yep you said it, finally somebody that thinks out of the box ;). Your typical expansion formula would have that problem, but what Blizz is doing eliminates it, they make an entire campaign for a race with the same quality from start to end then they make another one. It's easier to have high quality standards for an entire campaign, it's almost impossible to do so if you make a few missions, then you make some more in an expansion and so on, not even Blizz would be able to keep the same quality from start to end, it happened with Frozen Throne which was a great expansion but it wasn't really as good as RoC imo. When you do an entire campaign for a race you focus only on that not on 3 races and how they should be continued in the expansions.

It's exactly what you fear of in your last post but the opposite, that's exactly why they'll be able to make 3 campaigns of the same quality.

[QUOTE="Sins-of-Mosin"]$60 for 1/3 of a game, pass. Only way they can redeem themselves is if the next two are $20.DanielDust

[QUOTE="DanielDust"][QUOTE="Sins-of-Mosin"]$60 for 1/3 of a game, pass. Only way they can redeem themselves is if the next two are $20.bonafidetk

Intentionally splitting 1 game into 3 parts and selling it seperately is ok?

If you don't google and post again telling us what you discovered also it helps if you educated yourself on SC 1 first and compare them, the content.

Yes it's ok.

P.S: If you're too lazy to do so then at least tell me a single RTS in recent years that had enough content to justiffy their price and also run perfectly fine on any PC without absolutely no problems at all, not even a glitch. Just one, one "complete" game (RTS) without expansions with a full 30 mission campaign for each race, with the most powerful SDK ever created (no exaggeration) and a great multiplayer.