Starcraft II could be released "years apart" and 2009 release

Found on 1UP

In a separate interview with Joystiq, Blizzard's vice president of game design, Rob Pardo, also explained that he ideally sees the StarCraft 2 trilogy as a three-year plan. "With any luck, it would be like a year for each successive one, but that's going to be a target date, that's not a promise," Pardo said, after explaining the successive releases should be seen more as "expansion sets to the original" as opposed to separate products.

As for pricing -- a big concern for gamers who fear this may be a ploy to sell the same game three times -- neither Sigaty nor Pardo were ready to give any details. "You know, we haven't even talked about that yet," said Sigaty. "I don't know. They're definitely full-sized games. I mean, the scope will be big; it's going to be 26 to 30 missions in the first one, and we intend to have at least that much in the next after that."

Pardo was also quick to explain that the pricing will depend on how much content is in each release. "We would do the retail price based on the value that we're putting in the box," he said. "So, if the value in the box is less than the original, then we're going to price it like that. We're not just trying to get people to pay full-price for something that's less; if the follow-ups end up having the feature set of an expansion, then that's how they'll get priced."

While these expansions have mostly been discussed in terms of how they split up the single player campaign, Sigaty also revealed that each successive release will add new multiplayer units -- again, similar to a standard expansion pack. "Let's say we introduce a couple of new [multiplayer] units per side in the second one," he explained. "You would need to buy the expansion to have those units, that's the whole point of the expansion or the second part."

Sigh, so basically that means that yes...in order to keep up to date with the multiplayer aspect you will have to purchase all 3 games. *Sags head in dissapointment at Blizz*

Sigh, so basically that means that yes...in order to keep up to date with the multiplayer aspect you will have to purchase all 3 games. *Sags head in dissapointment at Blizz*

mkshift

why? thats how expansion packs for RTS's have always worked....

[QUOTE="mkshift"]

Sigh, so basically that means that yes...in order to keep up to date with the multiplayer aspect you will have to purchase all 3 games. *Sags head in dissapointment at Blizz*

cobrax75

why? thats how expansion packs for RTS's have always worked....

But instead of having a full game for initiial release, we have to a wait year or potentially two for the race we want to play in the single player campaign. Also, if new units are added, you basically HAVE to pay full price of 160 bucks for it.

[QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="mkshift"]

Sigh, so basically that means that yes...in order to keep up to date with the multiplayer aspect you will have to purchase all 3 games. *Sags head in dissapointment at Blizz*

MythPro1

why? thats how expansion packs for RTS's have always worked....

But instead of having a full game for initiial release, we have to a wait year or potentially two for the race we want to play in the single player campaign. Also, if new units are added, you basically HAVE to pay full price of 160 bucks for it.

I wish people would stop spreading around misinformation like this....

first off, no pricing has been announced for anything...and second, it is a full game, with a full length campaign and with full multiplayer....I dont know where you are pulling this crap from.

[QUOTE="MythPro1"][QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="mkshift"]

Sigh, so basically that means that yes...in order to keep up to date with the multiplayer aspect you will have to purchase all 3 games. *Sags head in dissapointment at Blizz*

cobrax75

why? thats how expansion packs for RTS's have always worked....

But instead of having a full game for initiial release, we have to a wait year or potentially two for the race we want to play in the single player campaign. Also, if new units are added, you basically HAVE to pay full price of 160 bucks for it.

I wish people would stop spreading around misinformation like this....

first off, no pricing has been announced for anything...and second, it is a full game, with a full length campaign and with full multiplayer....I dont know where you are pulling this crap from.

Not only that but I can't think of an RTS game released in the past couple of years that had a full campaign for all its races. C&C3 came close, but wan't there half as many Scrin missions?

[QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="mkshift"]

Sigh, so basically that means that yes...in order to keep up to date with the multiplayer aspect you will have to purchase all 3 games. *Sags head in dissapointment at Blizz*

MythPro1

why? thats how expansion packs for RTS's have always worked....

But instead of having a full game for initiial release, we have to a wait year or potentially two for the race we want to play in the single player campaign. Also, if new units are added, you basically HAVE to pay full price of 160 bucks for it.

I suppose I could see the single player campaigns as a legit gripe (although it seems like a bit of a stretch, why would you want to jump into the story in the middle?), but how is the bolded portion different than any expansion pack that has been released for any other RTS, including previous Blizzard titles? Is it simply because they announced two expansion packs instead of one? If you are disappointed in the idea of expansion packs for SCII period, I'd say you'd be upset sooner or later anyway.

"They're definitely full-sized games. I mean, the scope will be big; it's going to be 26 to 30 missions in the first one, and we intend to have at least that much in the next after that."

That's ridiculous and they know it. A campaign, no matter how long it is, is not a 'full game'. Multiplayer/skirmish is half of the package, and from what I've read, the additional parts of the trilogy will offer no additional multiplayer aspects (besides I would assume maps). So, for most gamers, a campaign is never going to be a 'full game', no matter how Blizzard tries to package it.

Someone in a position to do so should argue that point very, very loudly with Blizzard, I think. SC2 fans should not be paying full price for three games when they're getting the same half a game - the multiplayer - with each package.

As for the release dates, I don't care.

no loss for me, since Red Alert 3 is arriving, oops, in a few weeks time and looks better in everyway. maybe i'll take a look when Blizz releases a budget battle chest 5 6 years from now. yep, can't say i really care.

^ There will be new units in the last 2 parts, not just maps.Erlkoenig

Has that been confirmed? If so, I'm hearing conflicting reports right now.

And if there will be, that's far worse than if they weren't in there. I mean, to use Dawn of War as an example, an expansion means new units for all, a new army of two and a new campaign. Now, sure, the campaign isn't very good, but most people buy RTS games for their multiplayer experience.

And because the multiplayer experience is so central to the experience, those multiplayer fans will feel obliged to buy these games for the extra multiplayer aspects. Some will care about the singleplayer campaign, but most will not. If the second and third parts really are full priced then Blizzard is charging people for something that most don't even want.

If there are no new multiplayer features, the people not interested can at least skip the second and third parts, but if those multiplayer features are in there, and the games are full priced, then it's a massive con for those who don't care about campaigns, which is most people.

[QUOTE="Erlkoenig"]^ There will be new units in the last 2 parts, not just maps.fatshodan

Has that been confirmed? If so, I'm hearing conflicting reports right now.

And if there will be, that's far worse than if they weren't in there. I mean, to use Dawn of War as an example, an expansion means new units for all, a new army of two and a new campaign. Now, sure, the campaign isn't very good, but most people buy RTS games for their multiplayer experience.

And because the multiplayer experience is so central to the experience, those multiplayer fans will feel obliged to buy these games for the extra multiplayer aspects. Some will care about the singleplayer campaign, but most will not. If the second and third parts really are full priced then Blizzard is charging people for something that most don't even want.

If there are no new multiplayer features, the people not interested can at least skip the second and third parts, but if those multiplayer features are in there, and the games are full priced, then it's a massive con for those who don't care about campaigns, which is most people.

Why are you assuming that they'll be full-priced?

Btw, that last paragraph describes the model of pretty much every RTS to date: original game then expansion with a new campaign and new gameplay features.

So the only thing Blizzard is doing is changing the campaign model:

Normally: 10 Terran, 10 Zerg, 10 Protoss for the core game and each of its expansion for a total of 30 missions for each race, spreading over 3 installments.

Now: 30 Terran first, 30 Zerg later, then 30 Protoss last. Same amount of single-player content, just distributed differently.

And Blizzard is getting flamed for this. It seems like these naysayers are actually longtime Blizzard-haters masquerading as SC fans voicing their baseless disappointment to discredit the company.

[QUOTE="fatshodan"]

[QUOTE="Erlkoenig"]^ There will be new units in the last 2 parts, not just maps.Erlkoenig

Has that been confirmed? If so, I'm hearing conflicting reports right now.

And if there will be, that's far worse than if they weren't in there. I mean, to use Dawn of War as an example, an expansion means new units for all, a new army of two and a new campaign. Now, sure, the campaign isn't very good, but most people buy RTS games for their multiplayer experience.

And because the multiplayer experience is so central to the experience, those multiplayer fans will feel obliged to buy these games for the extra multiplayer aspects. Some will care about the singleplayer campaign, but most will not. If the second and third parts really are full priced then Blizzard is charging people for something that most don't even want.

If there are no new multiplayer features, the people not interested can at least skip the second and third parts, but if those multiplayer features are in there, and the games are full priced, then it's a massive con for those who don't care about campaigns, which is most people.

Why are you assuming that they'll be full-priced?

Btw, that last paragraph describes the model of pretty much every RTS to date: original game then expansion with a new campaign and new gameplay features.

So the only thing Blizzard is doing is changing the campaign model:

Normally: 10 Terran, 10 Zerg, 10 Protoss for the core game and each of its expansion for a total of 30 missions for each race, spreading over 3 installments.

Now: 30 Terran first, 30 Zerg later, then 30 Protoss last. Same amount of single-player content, just distributed differently.

And Blizzard is getting flamed for this. It seems like these naysayers are actually longtime Blizzard-haters masquerading as SC fans voicing their baseless disappointment to discredit the company.

No... This is in fact pretty ghey If Blizzard wasn't so out of touch with its fans it would realize the only reason Starcraft is still even an AFTERTHOUGHT for anybody AT ALL is because of the multiplayer experience. IF AND WHEN Blizzard gets my money for starcraft, I will completely skip the campaign and discredit it as a waste of time, pixels, and my breath without a single glance at it. I am only interested in this game for the multiplayer aspect of it. This is how I felt about the original Starcraft years and years ago after I heard about it on Battle.net whilst playing Diablo.

For me, this is a deal break. I don't want to pay good money for **** that could have been in the retail release. Fine, charge people money for the campaigns of each race. That was never a problem for me. I just won't buy them. But when I'm forced to spend my money on something that is priced according to the size of the single player experience because it is some shi*ty package deal, then I'm going to be a bit ticked off. I mean honestly, how long do you think it would take Blizzards devs to model program and balance a few new units into the already existing engine, races, and game? Fifteen minutes? A day? Certainly no more then a day of work (8 hours + lets say 30 employees... If it takes 240 man hours to put a unit into a game like this its time for Blizzard to start laying people off). This stuff could EASILY be put into the release of the first game. However, they are intentionally witholding it to encourage people to buy these "episodic" expansions. Whatever. No problem. Let me go back to TF2 where I get my MP updates for free.

Why are you assuming that they'll be full-priced?Erlkoenig

They're definitely full-sized games.Rob Pardo

I'm not assuming anything right now, but if they're treating them as full games, it's fair to assume they're looking at a full game pricing model.

If Blizzard is releasing three full priced products, then they are essentially offering, at least based on what we know so far, a full priced game and two full priced expansions padded out with filler that most RTS players don't actually care about.

It's great saying that there's these huge campaigns, and some people will love them, but most RTS fans don't care about the campaigns, they care about the multiplayer. So Blizzard is getting people to pay extra for something they don't want, just so they can get what they do want. And Blizzard knows its fanbase is large enough, and zealous enough, that they will pay whatever it costs to get those few extra multiplayer units.

Btw, that last paragraph describes the model of pretty much every RTS to date: original game then expansion with a new campErlkoenig

Yeah, and those expansions are priced accordingly (although the standard with RTS expansions in recent years has been to add new armies, too, not just new units). They aren't marketed as 'full games'. Even the standalone Dawn of War expansion, which featured an expansive campaign and two new armies - as well as the usual assortment of army enhancements for the existing (five) armies - was sold at the standard expansion price. They didn't try and trick their ravenous fans into thinking it was a whole new game.

As you imply, we shouldn't assume any kind of pricing model right now, but Blizzard is clearly trying to convince people that these are three separate games, not a game and two expansions. The obvious reason to do so is to quash the inevitable outcry about overpricing by making people think they're getting what they're paying for - even though most people won't actually want what they're paying for.

So the only thing Blizzard is doing is changing the campaign modelErlkoenig

Only if the latter parts of the 'trilogy' are priced accordingly.

If Blizzard wants to charge full price for people wanting to play these extra campaigns, that's fine by me, but they should not force the multiplayer gamers to buy these full priced games just for a few extra units. Let the campaigners enjoy their full priced campaigns and let the multiplayerers buy one of the three and get a fully featured multiplayer experience.

Again, if they're expansion prices, that's fine. But why are they trying to convince us they're full games? Why not treat them as expansions right from the start?

[QUOTE="Erlkoenig"]

Why are you assuming that they'll be full-priced?fatshodan

They're definitely full-sized games.Rob Pardo

I'm not assuming anything right now, but if they're treating them as full games, it's fair to assume they're looking at a full game pricing model.

If Blizzard is releasing three full priced products, then they are essentially offering, at least based on what we know so far, a full priced game and two full priced expansions padded out with filler that most RTS players don't actually care about.

It's great saying that there's these huge campaigns, and some people will love them, but most RTS fans don't care about the campaigns, they care about the multiplayer. So Blizzard is getting people to pay extra for something they don't want, just so they can get what they do want. And Blizzard knows its fanbase is large enough, and zealous enough, that they will pay whatever it costs to get those few extra multiplayer units.

Btw, that last paragraph describes the model of pretty much every RTS to date: original game then expansion with a new campErlkoenig

Yeah, and those expansions are priced accordingly (although the standard with RTS expansions in recent years has been to add new armies, too, not just new units). They aren't marketed as 'full games'. Even the standalone Dawn of War expansion, which featured an expansive campaign and two new armies - as well as the usual assortment of army enhancements for the existing (five) armies - was sold at the standard expansion price. They didn't try and trick their ravenous fans into thinking it was a whole new game.

As you imply, we shouldn't assume any kind of pricing model right now, but Blizzard is clearly trying to convince people that these are three separate games, not a game and two expansions. The obvious reason to do so is to quash the inevitable outcry about overpricing by making people think they're getting what they're paying for - even though most people won't actually want what they're paying for.

So the only thing Blizzard is doing is changing the campaign modelErlkoenig

Only if the latter parts of the 'trilogy' are priced accordingly.

If Blizzard wants to charge full price for people wanting to play these extra campaigns, that's fine by me, but they should not force the multiplayer gamers to buy these full priced games just for a few extra units. Let the campaigners enjoy their full priced campaigns and let the multiplayerers buy one of the three and get a fully featured multiplayer experience.

Again, if they're expansion prices, that's fine. But why are they trying to convince us they're full games? Why not treat them as expansions right from the start?

http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=11226742562&sid=3000

They are though. This is the official FAQ and it clearly says they are expansions.

No... This is in fact pretty ghey If Blizzard wasn't so out of touch with its fans it would realize the only reason Starcraft is still even an AFTERTHOUGHT for anybody AT ALL is because of the multiplayer experience. IF AND WHEN Blizzard gets my money for starcraft, I will completely skip the campaign and discredit it as a waste of time, pixels, and my breath without a single glance at it. I am only interested in this game for the multiplayer aspect of it. This is how I felt about the original Starcraft years and years ago after I heard about it on Battle.net whilst playing Diablo.

For me, this is a deal break. I don't want to pay good money for **** that could have been in the retail release. Fine, charge people money for the campaigns of each race. That was never a problem for me. I just won't buy them. But when I'm forced to spend my money on something that is priced according to the size of the single player experience because it is some shi*ty package deal, then I'm going to be a bit ticked off. I mean honestly, how long do you think it would take Blizzards devs to model program and balance a few new units into the already existing engine, races, and game? Fifteen minutes? A day? Certainly no more then a day of work (8 hours + lets say 30 employees... If it takes 240 man hours to put a unit into a game like this its time for Blizzard to start laying people off). This stuff could EASILY be put into the release of the first game. However, they are intentionally witholding it to encourage people to buy these "episodic" expansions. Whatever. No problem. Let me go back to TF2 where I get my MP updates for free.

4th3ist

I'm not sure if you noticed this but pretty much all the other RTS has expansions with content that could have been "easily" put into the main game. CoH, CnC1/2/3, Red Alert 2, DoW, WC3 and countless others.

The only thing Blizzard does differently this time is annoucing the expansions before the release of the main game, while the other times the companies kept a lid on them.

And you're really clueless if you think it only takes a day to add say, 6 new units to SC2. If it was that simple SC2 would have come out 3 years ago.

And since you're a TF2 fan, I assume you're a Valve fan as well. What do you think the episodic HL2? Is it a ripoff?

http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=11226742562&sid=3000

They are though. This is the official FAQ and it clearly says they are expansions.

crazymaghie123

If that's the case - and if they're priced as expansions - then that's just fine. I think they should drop the whole 'trilogy' charade; it's even more gimmicky that Valve's attempt at tricking people into thinking the HL2 expansions are actually episodic.

[QUOTE="crazymaghie123"]

http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=11226742562&sid=3000

They are though. This is the official FAQ and it clearly says they are expansions.

fatshodan

If that's the case - and if they're priced as expansions - then that's just fine. I think they should drop the whole 'trilogy' charade; it's even more gimmicky that Valve's attempt at tricking people into thinking the HL2 expansions are actually episodic.

I think unlike Half life 2 Blizzard needs to call it a trilogy considering they are doing a race per box just so it clarifies that the other races aren't forgotten. Thats my take on it atleast.

[QUOTE="Erlkoenig"][QUOTE="fatshodan"]

[QUOTE="Erlkoenig"]^ There will be new units in the last 2 parts, not just maps.4th3ist

Has that been confirmed? If so, I'm hearing conflicting reports right now.

And if there will be, that's far worse than if they weren't in there. I mean, to use Dawn of War as an example, an expansion means new units for all, a new army of two and a new campaign. Now, sure, the campaign isn't very good, but most people buy RTS games for their multiplayer experience.

And because the multiplayer experience is so central to the experience, those multiplayer fans will feel obliged to buy these games for the extra multiplayer aspects. Some will care about the singleplayer campaign, but most will not. If the second and third parts really are full priced then Blizzard is charging people for something that most don't even want.

If there are no new multiplayer features, the people not interested can at least skip the second and third parts, but if those multiplayer features are in there, and the games are full priced, then it's a massive con for those who don't care about campaigns, which is most people.

Why are you assuming that they'll be full-priced?

Btw, that last paragraph describes the model of pretty much every RTS to date: original game then expansion with a new campaign and new gameplay features.

So the only thing Blizzard is doing is changing the campaign model:

Normally: 10 Terran, 10 Zerg, 10 Protoss for the core game and each of its expansion for a total of 30 missions for each race, spreading over 3 installments.

Now: 30 Terran first, 30 Zerg later, then 30 Protoss last. Same amount of single-player content, just distributed differently.

And Blizzard is getting flamed for this. It seems like these naysayers are actually longtime Blizzard-haters masquerading as SC fans voicing their baseless disappointment to discredit the company.

No... This is in fact pretty ghey If Blizzard wasn't so out of touch with its fans it would realize the only reason Starcraft is still even an AFTERTHOUGHT for anybody AT ALL is because of the multiplayer experience. IF AND WHEN Blizzard gets my money for starcraft, I will completely skip the campaign and discredit it as a waste of time, pixels, and my breath without a single glance at it. I am only interested in this game for the multiplayer aspect of it. This is how I felt about the original Starcraft years and years ago after I heard about it on Battle.net whilst playing Diablo.

For me, this is a deal break. I don't want to pay good money for **** that could have been in the retail release. Fine, charge people money for the campaigns of each race. That was never a problem for me. I just won't buy them. But when I'm forced to spend my money on something that is priced according to the size of the single player experience because it is some shi*ty package deal, then I'm going to be a bit ticked off. I mean honestly, how long do you think it would take Blizzards devs to model program and balance a few new units into the already existing engine, races, and game? Fifteen minutes? A day? Certainly no more then a day of work (8 hours + lets say 30 employees... If it takes 240 man hours to put a unit into a game like this its time for Blizzard to start laying people off). This stuff could EASILY be put into the release of the first game. However, they are intentionally witholding it to encourage people to buy these "episodic" expansions. Whatever. No problem. Let me go back to TF2 where I get my MP updates for free.

Man grow up. Nobody gives a crap that you don't care about the single player and if you think there's very many like you then you don't know jack about SC. People who don't care about single player are in the SEVERE minority.

Plus, by complaining about getting more for your money, you're going to have people disagree with you.

SC2 has shown me just how many pathetic whiners there are on this board. I really didn't think PC gamers were this way in general. I thought this kind of stupidity was, for the most part, reserved for console gamers. I was wrong though, this shows that there's plenty of PC gamers that are no different than the annoying as hell console gamers. Pretty pathetic.

Ugh I don't understand what the problem is? Blizzard just announced that not only do we get Starcraft II and an expansion pack that we knew would be coming but we get a second expansion pack. (Two expansion packs which they haven't done since the original Warcraft, if I'm not mistaken) Sure the campaign structure is going to be different, but I don't want this thing to play like Warcraft 3 with different graphics.

And Blizzard is getting flamed for this. It seems like these naysayers are actually longtime Blizzard-haters masquerading as SC fans voicing their baseless disappointment to discredit the company.

Erlkoenig

What the f*** do u know? Ive been playing SC 1 since the month it came out. I thoroughly enjoyed the single player campaigns of it and Brood War and have played the multiplayer off and on ever since. I still play it fairly frequently.

Long time blizzard haters my a$$. This is a tough economic period for the world and I sure as s*** dont want to pay 3x for any game. SC2 is the one that ive been waiting for. This is a real deal breaker for me.

I have long considered Blizz to be the co. that will not disappoint me like many others have through their greed, and am quite upset that Blizz is now following the trend.

I am now a university student supporting myself in a very expensive London. Cant rely on my parents back in the states to buy their kid a game anymore like in the good old 90's... nor would i expect them to buy 3 games for the price of 1... i sure as hell wouldn't if i had a kid.

Before u start pulling that inconsiderate and ignorant crap out your butt, give a bit of thought to it. Not everyone is as willing to throw money away as you are.

I always considered myself a HUGE blizz fanboy and this whole trilogy thing has really deterred my desire to save up for and purchase SCII. I am sure many more than your feeble mind can imagine are in the same boat as me.

I am sure many of us will end up getting torrents of the single player campaigns and possibly buy the battlechest to play multiplayer a few years down the line.

[QUOTE="Erlkoenig"]

And Blizzard is getting flamed for this. It seems like these naysayers are actually longtime Blizzard-haters masquerading as SC fans voicing their baseless disappointment to discredit the company.

Archon_

What the f*** do u know? Ive been playing SC 1 since the month it came out. I thoroughly enjoyed the single player campaigns of it and Brood War and have played the multiplayer off and on ever since. I still play it fairly frequently.

Long time blizzard haters my a$$. This is a tough economic period for the world and I sure as s*** dont want to pay 3x for any game. SC2 is the one that ive been waiting for. This is a real deal breaker for me.

I have long considered Blizz to be the co. that will not disappoint me like many others have through their greed, and am quite upset that Blizz is now following the trend.

I am now a university student supporting myself in a very expensive London. Cant rely on my parents back in the states to buy their kid a game anymore like in the good old 90's... nor would i expect them to buy 3 games for the price of 1... i sure as hell wouldn't if i had a kid.

Before u start pulling that inconsiderate and ignorant crap out your butt, give a bit of thought to it. Not everyone is as willing to throw money away as you are.

I always considered myself a HUGE blizz fanboy and this whole trilogy thing has really deterred my desire to save up for and purchase SCII. I am sure many more than your feeble mind can imagine are in the same boat as me.

I am sure many of us will end up getting torrents of the single player campaigns and possibly buy the battlechest to play multiplayer a few years down the line.

Hey dude, quit your &%@*$ing! We don't wanna hear about your money woes. You know what? I can't eat steak every night. I don't drive a Ferrari. But I live comfortably within my means. No one's talking about throwing money away. It's an expected expense of the hobby. Maybe you should seek a more economical hobby for yourself. What your experiencing is called "Being a student" wear it like a badge of honor, not an excuse to whine endlessly. You annoy those of us who have struggled through and proudly made their accomplishments.

The complaining about this is getting rather lame. You get tons of content spread out over three years, the quality of wich will be much better than the previous games. The only question is if it will cost $49.99 or $39.99, but Blizzard has not even stated the cost.

[QUOTE="Archon_"][QUOTE="Erlkoenig"]

And Blizzard is getting flamed for this. It seems like these naysayers are actually longtime Blizzard-haters masquerading as SC fans voicing their baseless disappointment to discredit the company.

Wicked_Point

What the f*** do u know? Ive been playing SC 1 since the month it came out. I thoroughly enjoyed the single player campaigns of it and Brood War and have played the multiplayer off and on ever since. I still play it fairly frequently.

Long time blizzard haters my a$$. This is a tough economic period for the world and I sure as s*** dont want to pay 3x for any game. SC2 is the one that ive been waiting for. This is a real deal breaker for me.

I have long considered Blizz to be the co. that will not disappoint me like many others have through their greed, and am quite upset that Blizz is now following the trend.

I am now a university student supporting myself in a very expensive London. Cant rely on my parents back in the states to buy their kid a game anymore like in the good old 90's... nor would i expect them to buy 3 games for the price of 1... i sure as hell wouldn't if i had a kid.

Before u start pulling that inconsiderate and ignorant crap out your butt, give a bit of thought to it. Not everyone is as willing to throw money away as you are.

I always considered myself a HUGE blizz fanboy and this whole trilogy thing has really deterred my desire to save up for and purchase SCII. I am sure many more than your feeble mind can imagine are in the same boat as me.

I am sure many of us will end up getting torrents of the single player campaigns and possibly buy the battlechest to play multiplayer a few years down the line.

Hey dude, quit your &%@*$ing! We don't wanna hear about your money woes. You know what? I can't eat steak every night. I don't drive a Ferrari. But I live comfortably within my means. No one's talking about throwing money away. It's an expected expense of the hobby. Maybe you should seek a more economical hobby for yourself. What your experiencing is called "Being a student" wear it like a badge of honor, not an excuse to whine endlessly. You annoy those of us who have struggled through and proudly made their accomplishments.

I have no problem with my student lifestyle. Who said I wasnt proud? Ppl who think that everyone who is unhappy with the trilogy idea is a long time Blizzard hater annoy me, so there.

And no its not an expected expense of the hobby to have to pay for something 3 times. Maybe I have other hobbies as well? And if you live in America you have no idea how pricey **** is in London.

I would be happy to pay for SCII if i thought it was deserved. As soon as I read the announcement the only thing in my mind was that blizzard is money hungry after WoW.

You annoy me because you think you have struggled and yet you are happy to pay a huge corporation more than they deserve.

[QUOTE="Wicked_Point"][QUOTE="Archon_"][QUOTE="Erlkoenig"]

And Blizzard is getting flamed for this. It seems like these naysayers are actually longtime Blizzard-haters masquerading as SC fans voicing their baseless disappointment to discredit the company.

Archon_

What the f*** do u know? Ive been playing SC 1 since the month it came out. I thoroughly enjoyed the single player campaigns of it and Brood War and have played the multiplayer off and on ever since. I still play it fairly frequently.

Long time blizzard haters my a$$. This is a tough economic period for the world and I sure as s*** dont want to pay 3x for any game. SC2 is the one that ive been waiting for. This is a real deal breaker for me.

I have long considered Blizz to be the co. that will not disappoint me like many others have through their greed, and am quite upset that Blizz is now following the trend.

I am now a university student supporting myself in a very expensive London. Cant rely on my parents back in the states to buy their kid a game anymore like in the good old 90's... nor would i expect them to buy 3 games for the price of 1... i sure as hell wouldn't if i had a kid.

Before u start pulling that inconsiderate and ignorant crap out your butt, give a bit of thought to it. Not everyone is as willing to throw money away as you are.

I always considered myself a HUGE blizz fanboy and this whole trilogy thing has really deterred my desire to save up for and purchase SCII. I am sure many more than your feeble mind can imagine are in the same boat as me.

I am sure many of us will end up getting torrents of the single player campaigns and possibly buy the battlechest to play multiplayer a few years down the line.

Hey dude, quit your &%@*$ing! We don't wanna hear about your money woes. You know what? I can't eat steak every night. I don't drive a Ferrari. But I live comfortably within my means. No one's talking about throwing money away. It's an expected expense of the hobby. Maybe you should seek a more economical hobby for yourself. What your experiencing is called "Being a student" wear it like a badge of honor, not an excuse to whine endlessly. You annoy those of us who have struggled through and proudly made their accomplishments.

I have no problem with my student lifestyle. Who said I wasnt proud? Ppl who think that everyone who is unhappy with the trilogy idea is a long time Blizzard hater annoy me, so there.

And no its not an expected expense of the hobby to have to pay for something 3 times. Maybe I have other hobbies as well? And if you live in America you have no idea how pricey **** is in London.

I would be happy to pay for SCII if i thought it was deserved. As soon as I read the announcement the only thing in my mind was that blizzard is money hungry after WoW.

You annoy me because you think you have struggled and yet you are happy to pay a huge corporation more than they deserve.

They're releasing 1 full game and 2 expansion packs.

This is NORMAL!!!!!!!

Why the hell are you complaining about them doing what EVERYBODY does...release a game with 1 or 2 expansions.

I have no problem with my student lifestyle. Who said I wasnt proud? Ppl who think that everyone who is unhappy with the trilogy idea is a long time Blizzard hater annoy me, so there.

And no its not an expected expense of the hobby to have to pay for something 3 times. Maybe I have other hobbies as well? And if you live in America you have no idea how pricey **** is in London.

I would be happy to pay for SCII if i thought it was deserved. As soon as I read the announcement the only thing in my mind was that blizzard is money hungry after WoW.

You annoy me because you think you have struggled and yet you are happy to pay a huge corporation more than they deserve.

Archon_

Were you this passonate about how greedy Blizzard was when Brood War was released? The two later releases are referred to as expansion packs here, take that to mean whatever you wish. It might be better to wait for more details before getting all upset though.

[QUOTE="Erlkoenig"]

And Blizzard is getting flamed for this. It seems like these naysayers are actually longtime Blizzard-haters masquerading as SC fans voicing their baseless disappointment to discredit the company.

Archon_

What the f*** do u know? Ive been playing SC 1 since the month it came out. I thoroughly enjoyed the single player campaigns of it and Brood War and have played the multiplayer off and on ever since. I still play it fairly frequently.

Long time blizzard haters my a$$. This is a tough economic period for the world and I sure as s*** dont want to pay 3x for any game. SC2 is the one that ive been waiting for. This is a real deal breaker for me.

I have long considered Blizz to be the co. that will not disappoint me like many others have through their greed, and am quite upset that Blizz is now following the trend.

I am now a university student supporting myself in a very expensive London. Cant rely on my parents back in the states to buy their kid a game anymore like in the good old 90's... nor would i expect them to buy 3 games for the price of 1... i sure as hell wouldn't if i had a kid.

Before u start pulling that inconsiderate and ignorant crap out your butt, give a bit of thought to it. Not everyone is as willing to throw money away as you are.

I always considered myself a HUGE blizz fanboy and this whole trilogy thing has really deterred my desire to save up for and purchase SCII. I am sure many more than your feeble mind can imagine are in the same boat as me.

I am sure many of us will end up getting torrents of the single player campaigns and possibly buy the battlechest to play multiplayer a few years down the line.

OK I get it now. Blizzard had two options:

Kept silent and release the first SC2, then announce the expacs after (like they did in the past and like everyone else is doing) : people will accept that no problem.

VS

Be transparent and annouce the planned expacs before releasing the first game: people raise hell, screaming "RIPOFF!"

Both amount to the same thing, yet in the latter scenario some people just can't see past what's right in front of their eyes. If you're mad because they're planning 2 expacs instead of Blizzard's usual one, then I understand because I feel that way too.

[QUOTE="Archon_"][QUOTE="Erlkoenig"]

And Blizzard is getting flamed for this. It seems like these naysayers are actually longtime Blizzard-haters masquerading as SC fans voicing their baseless disappointment to discredit the company.

Erlkoenig

What the f*** do u know? Ive been playing SC 1 since the month it came out. I thoroughly enjoyed the single player campaigns of it and Brood War and have played the multiplayer off and on ever since. I still play it fairly frequently.

Long time blizzard haters my a$$. This is a tough economic period for the world and I sure as s*** dont want to pay 3x for any game. SC2 is the one that ive been waiting for. This is a real deal breaker for me.

I have long considered Blizz to be the co. that will not disappoint me like many others have through their greed, and am quite upset that Blizz is now following the trend.

I am now a university student supporting myself in a very expensive London. Cant rely on my parents back in the states to buy their kid a game anymore like in the good old 90's... nor would i expect them to buy 3 games for the price of 1... i sure as hell wouldn't if i had a kid.

Before u start pulling that inconsiderate and ignorant crap out your butt, give a bit of thought to it. Not everyone is as willing to throw money away as you are.

I always considered myself a HUGE blizz fanboy and this whole trilogy thing has really deterred my desire to save up for and purchase SCII. I am sure many more than your feeble mind can imagine are in the same boat as me.

I am sure many of us will end up getting torrents of the single player campaigns and possibly buy the battlechest to play multiplayer a few years down the line.

OK I get it now. Blizzard had two options:

Kept silent and release the first SC2, then announce the expacs after (like they did in the past and like everyone else is doing) : people will accept that no problem.

VS

Be transparent and annouce the planned expacs before releasing the first game: people raise hell, screaming "RIPOFF!"

Both amount to the same thing, yet in the latter scenario some people just can't see past what's right in front of their eyes. If you're mad because they're planning 2 expacs instead of Blizzard's usual one, then I understand because I feel that way too.

Don't forget how immature and stupid it is.. We have no idea what to expect from the amount of content that will be delivered.. Though if we were to base this off of Blizzards past track record, we have nothing but positive things to show that the game will have not only tons of content but tons of features as well as polish.

To me this is full of win.. I must be the only guy who thinks this is poistive.. I am recieveing what it looks to be the largest amount of Starcraft 2 content then ever was expected.. sSubZerOo

I'm with ya :D

As much as I love Starcraft, It would be really great to see Starcraft 2 actually be a crappy game and get hammered in reviews just to give Blizzard a taste of reality.

I'm also worried about what Blizzard will be doing to milk Diablo 3.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] To me this is full of win.. I must be the only guy who thinks this is poistive.. I am recieveing what it looks to be the largest amount of Starcraft 2 content then ever was expected.. crazymaghie123

I'm with ya :D

Me too!

When everything is over and done with I think allot of people will look back on this and realise that this wasn't so bad after all.

Why the heck are people getting mad?

How is this any different from other expansion packs?

I am really starting to despise Blizzard and actually am losing interest in StarCraft II now.foxhound_fox

I don't know man, as long as each of the releases stand up for themselves and show us a great, great gaming experience I will not mind

I have fear however, that the single player portion with the "non linear" campaign might be a lot boring.

It sounds good on paper, just like it sounded on Dark Crusade, but the whole conquer the map stuff where all battles just feel like a random skirmish game was very disappointing. Except for strongholds and such.... This non linear idea where you dictate the "story" I may fear that it will have no story whatsoever, or at least not any significant depth in it

Even a most amazing story wont save a game where 90% of all missions are just the same thing

That is all SP stuff obviously, multiplayer I know it will be good and likely please the fans

If I remember correctly (and I seldom do) the SP part of SCII isn't a total "open" game like Dark Crusade.
It's more like you can choose what order you want to do some of the missions, even skip over a few if you want.

Evidently towards the end the game becomes totally linear again. therog2

Oh that is good news then. Scripted single player missions in RTS is nice, the original DOWwas great, as SC 1 and many others.

If I remember correctly (and I seldom do) the SP part of SCII isn't a total "open" game like Dark Crusade.
It's more like you can choose what order you want to do some of the missions, even skip over a few if you want.

Evidently towards the end the game becomes totally linear again. therog2

Dark Crusades metamap looked awesome on paper but horrible in game.. The CPU rarely attacked, like 1 out of 50 times.. Half the maps were too large for a 1v1 game.. Spending alot of times looking for where the freaking cpu is pn a 8 person map is NOT fun.. It was ALWAYS 1v1 matchs,.. You never had a ffa game or could make alliances, where you may have larger battles... In the end there was so much this meta map could have done but it utterly failed.

So, you despise all devs that release expansion packs now?lettuceman44

[QUOTE="therog2"]If I remember correctly (and I seldom do) the SP part of SCII isn't a total "open" game like Dark Crusade.
It's more like you can choose what order you want to do some of the missions, even skip over a few if you want.

Evidently towards the end the game becomes totally linear again. sSubZerOo

Dark Crusades metamap looked awesome on paper but horrible in game.. The CPU rarely attacked, like 1 out of 50 times.. Half the maps were too large for a 1v1 game.. Spending alot of times looking for where the freaking cpu is pn a 8 person map is NOT fun.. It was ALWAYS 1v1 matchs,.. You never had a ffa game or could make alliances, where you may have larger battles... In the end there was so much this meta map could have done but it utterly failed.

Agree

Never wondered why the exact same thing, only larger was done in Soulstorm? (Which was even more boring)

They did it because people loved the idea, look at several reviews about Dark crusade and they all point how great that on this game you make your history, that is non linear, there is no script etc. However, when I saw for myself all I could see as a bunch of skirmish missions with Honor guard. And the story, where in fact just texts you get once you wiped out a faction related to the faction you were playing and what happened to the planet once you conquer it

There was nothing innovative and unique between the missions, and you could always choose to rush if your honor guard and end it on less than 5 minutes

I bet that even most of the most hardocre fans of the series never finished the campaign on all factions since there were no reward for that