| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (19)

Posted: Oct 12th 2008 9:13AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Given all the BS over monetized online play and paying separately for each class I don't really give much a shit about Starcraft 2 any more.
Soz
Reply

Posted: Oct 12th 2008 9:42AM Haggard said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wait, it's pay to play online?
Reply

Posted: Oct 12th 2008 9:57AM WiiFTW said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If the pay-to-play/1 games in 3 end up as gay as they sounds, I will no longer ♥ Blizzard.
Reply

Posted: Oct 12th 2008 10:14AM xHaldirx said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
No...they just they are looking into some aspects of Battle.net they could monetize. They did NOT say you had to pay to play online. And, I highly doubt that will be the case.
Reply

Posted: Oct 12th 2008 10:08AM Coldbrand said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
It's like I'm really hearing some guy talk about how he ripped off Warhammer 40,000!
Reply

Posted: Oct 12th 2008 10:34AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
This article to me just now reads like:
"We've got delusions of grandeur, and have gone well overboard with the budget and deadlines, so heres why you are paying for 3 games instead of the Starcraft sequel you were all expecting"
Reply

Posted: Oct 12th 2008 11:29PM plan99fromouterspace said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If you guys were in Korea, there would be a wall of people at your home right now with pitch forks and torches! They might be so angered as to make a trip back to the states for you! Remember this: Smell kim chee, fear the reaper.
Oh no, I smell kim chee! It WASN'T MEEEEEEEE!!!
Oh wait thats just my mom bringing me some food.
Reply

Posted: Oct 12th 2008 10:41AM gsaj said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ringo? Is that you? lol.
Reply

Posted: Oct 12th 2008 10:53AM Admiral Snackbar said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Andy Chambers was a designer for Games Workshop just a few years ago. I love that he's working on StarCraft now, only because it confirms Blizzards status as the most prestigious plagiarizers in the industry.

I love Blizzard games. I'm not happy with the company now. Monetized Battle.net, three campaigns as possibly full priced games, an MMO that hasn't put a single step forward in years and sacrificing game mechanics/balance to release WotLK faster.

Old Blizzard would NEVER have done that. WotLK would have been pushed back if this was two years ago. Now they're under the yoke of Activision, and seem cheerful about it. Despite maintaining appearances, they've lost their soul. This merger was awful.
Reply

Posted: Oct 12th 2008 2:41PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You're absolutely right. I'm ecstatic that there are other posters on here with a brain - it's highly unusual.

Blizzard's acquisition has really gotten me down and I'm assuming the other diehard fans feel screwed as well. WoW's devolution into watered-down casual gaming was worrying but I doubted they'd let something as precious as the SC franchise be affected by any outside sources. That they'd even consider that to be tainted proves that nothing is precious.

Like so many other gaming companies, Blizzard has succumbed to the will of their stock-minded overseers and has entirely forgotten the fans who helped put them there. Sierra's dead, Rare's dead (real Rare), Nintendo's given up on customer service and durable hardware in favor of cheap Apple-like curvature... I can't think of a single company that's worth trusting anymore.
Reply

Posted: Oct 12th 2008 1:03PM ZeroCorpse said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh, come on people! Can't you see what's happening here? Blizzard (and Activision) saw the kind of money they make from WoW, and they've decided it's better to make customers pay to play their games. They think the die-hards will log on to the "advanced" features of a pay-to-play Battle.net and so they're using Starcraft to shift toward that business model. They also see the value in micro-transactions and episodic content, which is why you're getting Starcraft in three parts (maybe more!) instead of one full game.

Think WoW here. How many expansion packs are there? How big were the sales of those upgrades? How many people shell out a subscription fee to do what we used to be able to do for free?

Blizzard has always been about maximizing their ability to take clones of other, better games and make a profit off of them. Warcraft was a rip-off of other games. Starcraft was just a sci-fi translation of Warcraft. WoW was a clone of Everquest. Diablo is just Gauntlet with better graphics. They don't have ONE original idea in their entire library-- It's all jacked from other companies and just given that Blizzard spit-n-polish.

Wake up and smell the opportunism, folks... Blizzard has never been about "The gamers". It's always been about taking another company's idea and then rehashing it with a little added "attitude" to market it to rabid fanboys who thought Blizzard was "on their side". Well, here's news folks-- THEY ARE NOT ON YOUR SIDE. They exist to get your money, and if they can nickel and dime you to death, they will.

Enjoy paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for for the privilege of playing Starcraft in bite-sized increments.
Reply

Posted: Oct 12th 2008 1:42PM SIGDESTRUCTION said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Did you feel this way before, or AFTER Blizzard announced that Starcraft 2 was going to be three titles? Feeling a little hurt are we?

Every company *obviously* wants our money. If we thought they didn't then yes we are delusional. But I'd still like to think that Blizzard is a developer who puts game quality first.

So let's think of it in a different perspective: They have this huge story with lots to tell and more game development to complete. Gamers have waiting 10 years. Pushing it back to make it one large game would take even longer. And as a company, they have to offset the costs of producing all of the content for the games. Today's industry leans more and more towards trilogy titles before they even know if the game is going to be good/sell or not. But I trust Blizzard to make good games. And I'm still with them in this.

If Battle.net costs money to play, then I won't play it. I'll just play through single player. If parts are free, then I will utilize those parts. I highly doubt the whole service will be pay-to-play. We know how well that went with XBox Live on PC.

Also, could you cite a specific game Warcraft ripped off? Please? I'd like to know the exact one. Is it because it's an RTS? Because if it's just mechanics, it still executed them incredibly well. And your just spouting hellfire at that point. And again, WoW, Diablo 2. Sure, they are similar, but arguably much BETTER than anything you could compare them to. I mean what about Titan Quest? It's basically just Diablo with Mythology and I thought it was a great game. Dungeon Siege was just Diablo with more emphasis on the RPG aspect. Same game really. You can't expect everything to be original all the time, but Blizzard is successful because of their quality.

Until I start seeing their franchises ported to consoles, with a new sequel every year, I'm going to save my judgment on Blizzard "Selling out"
Reply

Posted: Oct 12th 2008 2:44PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
ZeroCorpse is clearly right. Blizzard has always been aware of how easily milked the SC franchise could be. The difference is that the Blizzard of yesteryear would've never considered abusing that to make a couple extra bucks.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 11:43AM SIGDESTRUCTION said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
My point is he talks about Blizzard as if they ALWAYS were like this. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt until I start seeing Starcraft: Aerosmith.
Reply

Posted: Oct 12th 2008 1:27PM Falcon6 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I didn't realize the strategy games before Warcraft thought up the whole "Orcs v. humans" stuff.
I also didn't realize that a game company is in it for the money. I am shocked!

It's amazing how cheap gamers are sometimes. They complain about $20 XBLA games, they complain about this trilogy nonsense, and now they complain about Battle.net, despite the fact that they have no idea exactly WHAT will be charged.
If the product is good, I'll buy it. That's all I need to care about. WoW is good, so I pay for it. If Starcraft II ends up being as good as people say it is, I'll buy it. If Diablo III is good, I'll buy it.

If Blizzard's track record is any indication, they WILL be good. Their money-making ideas aside, they're a good game company. If not for this trilogy and Battle.net nonsense, people would be drooling at Starcraft II. I guarantee you that.
Reply

Posted: Oct 12th 2008 1:41PM Rax Dakkar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The thing I want to know about the Trilogy thing is are they really expansion packs? Is the first full featured game 50$ and the next two 30$ expansions or are they going to make us buy the whole game 3 times? And don't expansion packs usually see things like new units? That would turn this whole thing from being a massive nickle and diming scheme into an awesome addition of new content.
Reply

Posted: Oct 12th 2008 2:30PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Arturus Mengsk? Don't you mean ArCturus Mengsk?

Sorry - I love SC and that bothered me.
Reply

Posted: Oct 13th 2008 1:39AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Swann as in swan song?
Tosh??? as in Posh Spice Girls???!
Matt Horner??? as in Matt Horny (like a porn actor????

Wat da Fark!!!

In the Original SC we had real touch names that you didn't laugh at, not fairy names.

First they screw up the gameplay by splitting up original SC units into more unnecessary units (e.g., Dragoon into 2 different dragoons). Then they take away terrain elevation advantages by making units that can walk and jump over them--what's the point of getting high ground then???

Gawd, I hate that Sigarty guy. He doesn't even belong on SC2. He made Command and Conquer crap which sucked balls.

2nd, they take away rendered beautiful CGI and give us blocky in game 3d animation instead. And they claim this is the reason why SC2 will take longer to finish and have to charge 3x the price??? Since when is blocky 3d characters harder to animate than CGI rendered movies???? This is pure bull propaganda that they are feeding us.

3rd, they split up 1 game into 3 and charge full price for each. I gaurantee it will be full price by the way they are going about it. Only a blind fanboy or blizzard plant will try to lie to us and hope we forget when they do charge us full price over and over again. Remember, history tends to repeat itself ... people have weak memories ... never learn so many will fall for Blizz's lie.

4th, multiplayer will be incomplete and watered down until all 3 games come out and you will have to pay for all 3 games to play all 3 races. $150-$180 for a RTS??? But that's not all the money it will take, read below.

5th, they are talking about monetizing battlenet which means ONLY 1 thing. Monthly payments to get onto to battlenet. This is how they reward SC1 players who made it one of the tops selling games ... by charging for battlenet when it used to be free and blizzard had no problems with it before. This ain't no WOW with changing content and chaning characters and items. This is RTS where the units are permanent ... only minor balance tweaking is involved in updates ... which was free in SC1.

They lie about how Activision had no influence on them. Bull. Employees in anonymity mention their management began forcing these new anti-consumer strategies on them to make the Activision merger happen. Which means Activision asked Blizzard to milk SC2 like never before (and hence screw consumers) or else they wouldn't merge.

FACK Blizz for Facking SC2 up bigtime. Well, that's it SC2 has caused me to give up games finally ... I can stop wasting time because there is no more good games and game companies anymore. I guess that's a good thing. See some of you intelligent guys in the real world. Thank blizzard for waking some of us up.
Reply

Posted: Oct 14th 2008 2:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
HAHAHA! Your anger is hilarious.

"In the Original SC we had real touch names that you didn't laugh at, not fairy names."

You're complaining about their names!? Most of the names are dumb, anyway.

"First they screw up the gameplay..."

It's called replacing units that are unpopular in competitive play. And we'll see how your mass Reapers/Colossi strategy works in actual gameplay.

"2nd, they take away rendered beautiful CGI and give us blocky in game 3d animation instead..."

Um... Maybe because there are more of them?

"3rd, they split up 1 game into 3 and charge full price for each. I gaurantee it will be full price by the way they are going about it."

LOL. Blizzard never lied about anything. They said they didn't know. And there are plenty of ways around this, like making each game completely stand-alone (i.e. you could buy LotV only and it will still word).

"4th, multiplayer will be incomplete and watered down..."

Again, your biased attitude shows. One person's trash really is another's treasure. WoL will be a complete product, and if they think of anything else to put into HotS and then LotV, they'll put it in.

"5th, they are talking about monetizing battlenet which means ONLY 1 thing. Monthly payments to get onto to battlenet."

Wow. You really are talking out of your *** now (dunno much about terms of use here). Looks like you're the one spewing propaganda.

The sad truth is that we have something called inflation in real life. Deal with it. I suppose you've stopped filling up on gas since it went above $1/gal?

I'm not "just another fanboy", if you're going to use that pitiful excuse for an argument. I'm going to give Blizzard, as with any other company, the benefit of the doubt because life is just less pessimistic that way. You should try it.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

WRUP: All the Reckoning

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 11:45PM

Xbox Live Indie Gems: Nyan Cat Adventure

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 10:15PM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW