starcraft 2 will cost you 120 - 150 USD + TAX

yup you heard it right, scII will cost 120 - 150 USD + TAX

first game 40-50USD , 2nd game 40-50USD, 3rd game 40-50USD = anywhere from 120 to 150 that you will have to pay + tax

and if they make you pay for battlenet services, good game.

scII will be released at 3 separate times

terran campaign will be the first release

zerg campaign will be the first expansion (new units, maps, etc...)

protoss campaign will be the 2nd expansion (new units, maps, etc... )

PROS:

-you will get everything you want to play with the first release

-a faster release date, less wait time, bring on sc2 baby!

-a more polished single player experience

-epic campaign for the first time

CONS:

-with the 1st and 2nd expansion, you will be forced to buy it anyway, because it comes with new units, abilities, maps, etc... so you cant be just like "oh i'll jus buy the first game, since i only want the online experience'.

-gota pay for the extra expansion pack

-might have to pay for battlenet services ( still unknown), sc was hugely popular because the online was free

-people who could care less about the single player experience will pay alot more than they paid for regular starcraft + broodwar.

-not everyone will care or play the campaign, the online is where its at.

although they are denying milking the franchise, in a way it is...

it is effectively the first time they will ever do a 2nd expansion for an RTS game, gamers will have to pay for 3 games instead of 2.

and given the amount of money they made from wow subscriptions, i dont u/s why they cant hire more people to be on the sc2 team (well knowing how bland the arena gear in wow was for 4 seasons, i guess i shouldn't hope for anything better)

and being able to release two more expansions is GOOD, since they can polish up their single player campaign and make more money.. but again... blizzard is rich now and I'm pretty sure they could've hired a lot more people to finish the game on time with three campaigns

so conclusion: they are milking it to the max for the first time. I mean comon.... starcraft + brood war was released how long ago? 10 years+? 12???? dont tell me you didn't have enough time to flesh out the story, work on the graphics engine etc.. and make 90 campaigns. its just a new business model to take advantage of the popularity of the starcraft and also effectively giving it more life in the long run, in the end we will get a polished single player experience at a higher price with the fabulous online play.

Stop guessing, make such a thread only "after" we know how much it will cost. We can guess all day long, it won't make the game come faster and we won't actually know the official price.

And please understand that Battle.net is free :| don't know where some of you get the idea it will cost money. Certain features will be subscription based, that doesn't mean that playing on bnet will cost money :|.

way too much speculation in this topic

There isnt anywhere near enough infomation from Blizzard to make some of those statements

way too much speculation in this topic

There isnt anywhere near enough infomation from Blizzard to make some of those statements

TeamR

exactly

Gamespot is showing it as $59.99 on their Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty page. Link to Best Buy...

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8719899&type=product&id=1200702781643&ref=09&loc=01&srccode=cii_0&cpncode=23-540996-2

If Blizzard was money hungry they would be on Warcraft VI and Starcraft IV by now.

I fail to see how anybody is complaining about getting more for your money.

If Blizzard was money hungry they would be on Warcraft VI and Starcraft IV by now.

I fail to see how anybody is complaining about getting more for your money.

mudman91878

Yeah I don't get it. People will complain if the campaign is short and tacked on. But when a company adds three FULL campaigns as expansions, then they hate the idea. Since the campaigns are high quality and heavily story-based, I really don't see the problem here. It's not like you aren't going to be getting your money's worth, unless you just really don't care about the singleplayer, in which case, don't buy the expansions.

speculating? this is speculating with common sense...

no site for proof? im basing this argument from their announcement of sc2 being a trilogy and how the 2 other games will be, and they officially said it will be two xpacs. i can only guess people that dismissed this post simply because they were too lazy to read through it. it is rather short.

Other RTS games have more than one expansion, but you never hear anyone complain about those companies milking their franchises.mudflaps2001

Announcing expansion packs before the game is released is a crime, it seems.

Gamespot is showing it as $59.99 on their Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty page. Link to Best Buy...

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8719899&type=product&id=1200702781643&ref=09&loc=01&srccode=cii_0&cpncode=23-540996-2

Amigro

speculating? this is speculating with common sense...

no site for proof? im basing this argument from their announcement of sc2 being a trilogy and how the 2 other games will be, and they officially said it will be two xpacs. i can only guess people that dismissed this post simply because they were too lazy to read through it. it is rather short.

thenycest1_b_basic

More like masquerading uninformed guesses as facts.

We don't have enough information. If the last two parts are true expansions, meaning new units, gameplay additions on top of the new campaign (read: Brood War), I don't see a problem.

Other RTS games have more than one expansion, but you never hear anyone complain about those companies milking their franchises.mudflaps2001

Companies like EA that milk it dry have been getting flak for a long time. This is even worse, since Blizzard are outright saying, before any kind of release, that they're gonna be dividing up the content into expansions. So yes, they do deserve to take heat for it.

[QUOTE="mudflaps2001"]Other RTS games have more than one expansion, but you never hear anyone complain about those companies milking their franchises.F1_2004

Companies like EA that milk it dry have been getting flak for a long time. This is even worse, since Blizzard are outright saying, before any kind of release, that they're gonna be dividing up the content into expansions. So yes, they do deserve to take heat for it.

you really think that what ea does with the sims franchise is the same as what blizzard is doing with sc2? let's break this down: the sims 2 has 8 expansions and 10 stuff packs with each of the expansions costing $30 and the stuff packs costing $20. that's $240+$200, which equals $440. not only that, it seems ea deliberately set out to do this from the getgo, which is pretty obvious since half the expansions are pretty much the same as what they released for the original sims. blizzard, from what we can tell, just went overboard with the terran campaign and ended up with more than enough content to justify releasing it as a full game. as mudflaps2001 mentioned, a lot of rts release at least 2 or 3 expansions, which pretty much comes out to $110-170 ($50 for the original, $30-40 for the expansions), which is pretty much on par with how much sc2 will end up costing as a whole. $490 (including the sims 2) v. $120-150? i really don't see the comparison.

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]

[QUOTE="mudflaps2001"]Other RTS games have more than one expansion, but you never hear anyone complain about those companies milking their franchises.JnWycliffe

Companies like EA that milk it dry have been getting flak for a long time. This is even worse, since Blizzard are outright saying, before any kind of release, that they're gonna be dividing up the content into expansions. So yes, they do deserve to take heat for it.

you really think that what ea does with the sims franchise is the same as what blizzard is doing with sc2? let's break this down: the sims 2 has 8 expansions and 10 stuff packs with each of the expansions costing $30 and the stuff packs costing $20. that's $240+$200, which equals $440. not only that, it seems ea deliberately set out to do this from the getgo, which is pretty obvious since half the expansions are pretty much the same as what they released for the original sims. blizzard, from what we can tell, just went overboard with the terran campaign and ended up with more than enough content to justify releasing it as a full game. as mudflaps2001 mentioned, a lot of rts release at least 2 or 3 expansions, which pretty much comes out to $110-170 ($50 for the original, $30-40 for the expansions), which is pretty much on par with how much sc2 will end up costing as a whole. $490 (including the sims 2) v. $120-150? i really don't see the comparison.

Aside from the fact that the Sims 2 is the most extreme example, SC2's selling for $60 at the moment. Let's say $180 total. They imply new expansions will have new units, and in online play, you must have all units to be competitive, so you have no choice in the matter - you must buy all. Sims 2 stuff packs are completely optional, and even their main expansions are just extra stuff. With Blizzard, even if you're an online gamer with no care for single player, you'll likely have to buy them.

Yes it is a money grab.

The Best Buy price is for the collectors edition, I think the base game will be $50 and the other expansion packs will be $20-30 can't wait to get the first campaign 30 missions is insane if they do the same amount for the other 2 campaigns then it will be worth the price and the wait.thewilyranger

[QUOTE="JnWycliffe"][QUOTE="F1_2004"]

[QUOTE="mudflaps2001"]Other RTS games have more than one expansion, but you never hear anyone complain about those companies milking their franchises.F1_2004

Companies like EA that milk it dry have been getting flak for a long time. This is even worse, since Blizzard are outright saying, before any kind of release, that they're gonna be dividing up the content into expansions. So yes, they do deserve to take heat for it.

you really think that what ea does with the sims franchise is the same as what blizzard is doing with sc2? let's break this down: the sims 2 has 8 expansions and 10 stuff packs with each of the expansions costing $30 and the stuff packs costing $20. that's $240+$200, which equals $440. not only that, it seems ea deliberately set out to do this from the getgo, which is pretty obvious since half the expansions are pretty much the same as what they released for the original sims. blizzard, from what we can tell, just went overboard with the terran campaign and ended up with more than enough content to justify releasing it as a full game. as mudflaps2001 mentioned, a lot of rts release at least 2 or 3 expansions, which pretty much comes out to $110-170 ($50 for the original, $30-40 for the expansions), which is pretty much on par with how much sc2 will end up costing as a whole. $490 (including the sims 2) v. $120-150? i really don't see the comparison.

Aside from the fact that the Sims 2 is the most extreme example, SC2's selling for $60 at the moment. Let's say $180 total. They imply new expansions will have new units, and in online play, you must have all units to be competitive, so you have no choice in the matter - you must buy all. Sims 2 stuff packs are completely optional, and even their main expansions are just extra stuff. With Blizzard, even if you're an online gamer with no care for single player, you'll likely have to buy them.

Yes it is a money grab.

first of all, that $60 isn't the retail price. i don't even know where you saw it, because amazon doesn't have a price, gamestop has it listed for $50, and gogamer doesn't even have the game listed yet; obviously, that's not the price that blizzard has set, but i guess that price, wherever you saw it, supported your theory the best, eh?

second, what they're doing with the multiplayer is no different from what they did with warcraft 3 - for those that don't buy the 'expansions', they can still play with/against others who don't have the expansions. just as warcraft 3 maintained separate online gaming lobbies and ladders for expansion set players and players with just the original game, so will starcraft 2. i don't know where you get the idea that you have no choice.

way too much speculation in this topic

There isnt anywhere near enough infomation from Blizzard to make some of those statements

TeamR

[QUOTE="F1_2004"][QUOTE="JnWycliffe"][QUOTE="F1_2004"]

[QUOTE="mudflaps2001"]Other RTS games have more than one expansion, but you never hear anyone complain about those companies milking their franchises.JnWycliffe

Companies like EA that milk it dry have been getting flak for a long time. This is even worse, since Blizzard are outright saying, before any kind of release, that they're gonna be dividing up the content into expansions. So yes, they do deserve to take heat for it.

you really think that what ea does with the sims franchise is the same as what blizzard is doing with sc2? let's break this down: the sims 2 has 8 expansions and 10 stuff packs with each of the expansions costing $30 and the stuff packs costing $20. that's $240+$200, which equals $440. not only that, it seems ea deliberately set out to do this from the getgo, which is pretty obvious since half the expansions are pretty much the same as what they released for the original sims. blizzard, from what we can tell, just went overboard with the terran campaign and ended up with more than enough content to justify releasing it as a full game. as mudflaps2001 mentioned, a lot of rts release at least 2 or 3 expansions, which pretty much comes out to $110-170 ($50 for the original, $30-40 for the expansions), which is pretty much on par with how much sc2 will end up costing as a whole. $490 (including the sims 2) v. $120-150? i really don't see the comparison.

Aside from the fact that the Sims 2 is the most extreme example, SC2's selling for $60 at the moment. Let's say $180 total. They imply new expansions will have new units, and in online play, you must have all units to be competitive, so you have no choice in the matter - you must buy all. Sims 2 stuff packs are completely optional, and even their main expansions are just extra stuff. With Blizzard, even if you're an online gamer with no care for single player, you'll likely have to buy them.

Yes it is a money grab.

first of all, that $60 isn't the retail price. i don't even know where you saw it, because amazon doesn't have a price, gamestop has it listed for $50, and gogamer doesn't even have the game listed yet; obviously, that's not the price that blizzard has set, but i guess that price, wherever you saw it, supported your theory the best, eh?

second, what they're doing with the multiplayer is no different from what they did with warcraft 3 - for those that don't buy the 'expansions', they can still play with/against others who don't have the expansions. just as warcraft 3 maintained separate online gaming lobbies and ladders for expansion set players and players with just the original game, so will starcraft 2. i don't know where you get the idea that you have no choice.

He clearly has no clue what he's talking about or he would've known about the things you just mentioned. He's just whining because it seems that's the cool thing to do these days.

[QUOTE="F1_2004"][QUOTE="JnWycliffe"][QUOTE="F1_2004"]

[QUOTE="mudflaps2001"]Other RTS games have more than one expansion, but you never hear anyone complain about those companies milking their franchises.JnWycliffe

Companies like EA that milk it dry have been getting flak for a long time. This is even worse, since Blizzard are outright saying, before any kind of release, that they're gonna be dividing up the content into expansions. So yes, they do deserve to take heat for it.

you really think that what ea does with the sims franchise is the same as what blizzard is doing with sc2? let's break this down: the sims 2 has 8 expansions and 10 stuff packs with each of the expansions costing $30 and the stuff packs costing $20. that's $240+$200, which equals $440. not only that, it seems ea deliberately set out to do this from the getgo, which is pretty obvious since half the expansions are pretty much the same as what they released for the original sims. blizzard, from what we can tell, just went overboard with the terran campaign and ended up with more than enough content to justify releasing it as a full game. as mudflaps2001 mentioned, a lot of rts release at least 2 or 3 expansions, which pretty much comes out to $110-170 ($50 for the original, $30-40 for the expansions), which is pretty much on par with how much sc2 will end up costing as a whole. $490 (including the sims 2) v. $120-150? i really don't see the comparison.

Aside from the fact that the Sims 2 is the most extreme example, SC2's selling for $60 at the moment. Let's say $180 total. They imply new expansions will have new units, and in online play, you must have all units to be competitive, so you have no choice in the matter - you must buy all. Sims 2 stuff packs are completely optional, and even their main expansions are just extra stuff. With Blizzard, even if you're an online gamer with no care for single player, you'll likely have to buy them.

Yes it is a money grab.

first of all, that $60 isn't the retail price. i don't even know where you saw it, because amazon doesn't have a price, gamestop has it listed for $50, and gogamer doesn't even have the game listed yet; obviously, that's not the price that blizzard has set, but i guess that price, wherever you saw it, supported your theory the best, eh?

second, what they're doing with the multiplayer is no different from what they did with warcraft 3 - for those that don't buy the 'expansions', they can still play with/against others who don't have the expansions. just as warcraft 3 maintained separate online gaming lobbies and ladders for expansion set players and players with just the original game, so will starcraft 2. i don't know where you get the idea that you have no choice.

If you were at all into competitive gaming, you'd know that all the top, good and half-decent players will be playing the latest version of the game that has the latest unit additions and is getting the latest balance patches that take the latest units into account. How many pro SC players were playing SC after Brood War came out, I wonder?

If you were at all into competitive gaming, you'd know that all the top, good and half-decent players will be playing the latest version of the game that has the latest unit additions and is getting the latest balance patches that take the latest units into account. How many pro SC players were playing SC after Brood War came out, I wonder? F1_2004

Were you saying this when Brood War came out? Or any RTS expansion for that matter? If you dislike the expansion model every company and their dog is doing, then be clear about it. As it is you're just cluelessly jumping on the hatewagon.

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]If you were at all into competitive gaming, you'd know that all the top, good and half-decent players will be playing the latest version of the game that has the latest unit additions and is getting the latest balance patches that take the latest units into account. How many pro SC players were playing SC after Brood War came out, I wonder? Erlkoenig

Were you saying this when Brood War came out? Or any RTS expansion for that matter? If you dislike the expansion model every company and their dog is doing, then be clear about it. As it is you're just a moron jumping on a hatewagon.

re-read my other posts (comparing to Sims) as to why their new model is worse than original game/exp pack models, I can't be arsed to re-write it.

[QUOTE="Erlkoenig"]

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]If you were at all into competitive gaming, you'd know that all the top, good and half-decent players will be playing the latest version of the game that has the latest unit additions and is getting the latest balance patches that take the latest units into account. How many pro SC players were playing SC after Brood War came out, I wonder? F1_2004

Were you saying this when Brood War came out? Or any RTS expansion for that matter? If you dislike the expansion model every company and their dog is doing, then be clear about it. As it is you're just a moron jumping on a hatewagon.

re-read my other posts (comparing to Sims) as to why their new model is worse than original game/exp pack models, I can't be arsed to re-write it.

And what the hell do you mean by "original game/expo model"? Besides the campaign structure, nothing is new about SC2's expo model.

And no, you're not forced to buy the expacs.

No you're not forced to buy them, if you're content with playing vs. noobs while anyone important is off playing with expansion units. In that case, single-player AI is more challenging.F1_2004

I have the ultimate solution for you! Since you're thinking of not even buying it or what not, why don't you just play the other games you were planning on playing then when Starcraft 2: legacy of void comes out you just buy that version and play it. That way you don't support what you feel is wrong and get to play Starcraft 2 for a price you feel is fair.

Personally for me, I pay for the content I get so I will have no issue paying for Starcraft 2 and its expansions if I feel they're good when I get them.

So Blizzard is at fault because their games are played competitively? While Relic can get away with many expansions because their games are not?Erlkoenig

If they didn't want their games played competitively, they'd have broken them with terrible patches like Relic has.

So Blizzard is at fault because their games are played competitively? While Relic can get away with many expansions because their games are not?Erlkoenig

wow, you're brilliant.

-1. with the 1st and 2nd expansion, you will be forced to buy it anyway, because it comes with new units, abilities, maps, etc... so you cant be just like "oh i'll jus buy the first game, since i only want the online experience'.

-2. gota pay for the extra expansion pack

-3. might have to pay for battlenet services ( still unknown), sc was hugely popular because the online was free

-4. people who could care less about the single player experience will pay alot more than they paid for regular starcraft + broodwar.

-5. not everyone will care or play the campaign, the online is where its at.

thenycest1_b_basic

1. blizzard has not said whether "new abilities, units, etc" in the later campaigns will be available for play or not (i think it was a gamespot article that said that a blizzard employee said they wouldn't; unconfirmed as of now)

2. gota pay for the expansion pack - same with WoW and everything else

3. battle.net services - again, unconfirmed, stop assuming things

4. invalid because once again if u want online only you might just have to buy ONE of the campaigns

5. you keep repeating urself

it is STILL FAR TOO EARLY to be sure of anything, as of now, this sounds like a good deal to m.

i REALLY think the online will be identical for all campaigns. blizzard DID say that the different campaigns will have different "elements" (protoss has got diplomacy) and if u think about it, starcraft online isnt really about diplomacy

yup you heard it right, scII will cost 120 - 150 USD + TAX

first game 40-50USD , 2nd game 40-50USD, 3rd game 40-50USD = anywhere from 120 to 150 that you will have to pay + tax

thenycest1_b_basic

I stopped reading right there as it's clear YOU HAVEN'T A CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Even IF that was the correct pricing scheme... IT'S OVER A THREE YEAR TIME SPAN. HOW FREAKING CHEAP ARE YOU PEOPLE!?!?!!

I doubt you've played DoW as there have been 4 expansions that mean ol Relic has made you pay for. And you could only play the races for the pack that you owned online.

Get a grip, people!

I doubt you've played DoW as there have been 4 expansions that mean ol Relic has made you pay for. And you could only play the races for the pack that you owned online.

Johnny_Rock

I doubt you have, either, as there are only 3 expansion packs to Dawn of War.

Either way, most of the arguments I've seen against Blizzard for this are awfully speculative - I'm not assuming anything myself.

No one can blame anyone for not liking this decision. Blizzard could of just released the game with all the races scenarios. Anjust kept it at 10 missions per race, instead of 30. And then in a few years released a expansion pack with some more missions. I think most people would prefere this.

The way Blizzard are running things now it's almost like you get a incomplete game with just the Terran missions. So you will feel more compelled to buy the rest of the game when its released. And it's not one expansion but two. So it's alot of money just to get the full story for all three races. in my opinion this really only benefits Blizzard and no the consumer.

No one can blame anyone for not liking this decision. Blizzard could of just released the game with all the races scenarios. Anjust kept it at 10 missions per race, instead of 30. And then in a few years released a expansion pack with some more missions. I think most people would prefere this.

ShimmerMan

Blizz is legend of PC gaming scene for sure, but I don't remember their games are popular or priased for *storytelling*: 30 missions just to tell 1/3 of story? so what's the focus of this RTS triology anyway? 90 episodes of long story or 90 intense, out-of -this-world RTS missions?

The aim of the single player experience is to deliver a long story and 90 action packs missions. But in my honest opinion 90 missions is too much for a single player RTS. RTS is bext experienced in multiplayer against oppenants that can actually reason. So I'm guessing most of the single player focus will be on story telling, as there's really no way to make the single player missions vs computer ai match up that of multiplayer.

Here is my view:

Even though it's all speculation this this point, paying for three seperate products wouldnt be a huge deal. A big game being augmented with 2-3 expansions isn't anything new. Even console games are getting in on the action (Halo 3: Recon). It's no big deal and it's someting we have all readily accepted in the past.

I can also see Blizzard's point that each campaign will be simply too big to put into one package. Look at what we've seen in the Terran campaign so far...branching missions, an "overworld" to explore and interact with, characters, cutscenes, it's going to be HUUUGE. As cool as it might be to have three seperate campaigns of that size in one package it's just unrealistic.

I loved the Harry Potter books, but i'll be damned if I expect Rowling to pack every single volume into a huge monstrosiity of a book.

My point: Stop jumping to conclusions and panicking for no reason. Blizzard didn't get it's reputation by screwing over customers. They have a spotless track record so we should really be giving them the benifit of the doubt here

If you were at all into competitive gaming, you'd know that all the top, good and half-decent players will be playing the latest version of the game that has the latest unit additions and is getting the latest balance patches that take the latest units into account. How many pro SC players were playing SC after Brood War came out, I wonder?

F1_2004

ok, so what's your problem? no good player played sc after brood war came out. no good player played wc3 after ft came out. and no player will play sc2 once the expansions come out. so what has changed? you really should think through your arguments, cuz you're not supporting them with the examples you're giving.