Blizzard VP: Starcraft 2 Trilogy on the 3-year plan
by Kevin Kelly 
{ Oct 13th 2008 at 10:00AM }
Since SC2 won't be out until 2009, you won't be able to play the Protoss single player until at least 2011. That's a long time to wait. Check out what Rob said after the break, and start yer speculatin'.
With the announcement about Starcraft 2 being a trilogy, do we know how long it'll be between releases?
We don't know yet, because we don't even know when the first game is getting released yet. I think there's some feeling out there that because we're treating each of the campaigns as almost like separate products, that people have somehow confused that into they're going to be separate products. In a lot of ways, you should think about the follow-ups as being kind of expansion sets to the original. It's just that the campaigns are not going to feel like expansions, they're going to feel like full, independent stories.
So, you know 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.
Do you know what the pricing on it will be? People are bristling at the thought of having to pay for a game three times.
We would do the retail price based on the value that we're putting in the box. 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 followups end up having the feature set of an expansion, then that's how they'll get priced.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Levi @ Oct 13th 2008 10:03AM
like they haven't had enough time to finish the whole game already???
I think Duke Nukem Forever might come out before this full game does XD
Hashbrown Hunter @ Oct 13th 2008 10:25AM
Sadly, I think I'd believe that.
acefondu @ Oct 13th 2008 10:06AM
Ugh, I'll wait for the box set of all three games at this rate. I'm sorry but I'm quite upset this is coming out in such a method. There is no need to make each race to have their own game. And what is it going to be $50 a pop? I sure hope not, then instead of the box set I'll be waiting for the bargain bin set.
BigD145 @ Oct 13th 2008 12:13PM
SC2 is now off my radar for the next 4 years.
Limezor @ Oct 13th 2008 12:25PM
The amount of time [the average user] will spend on this game (100+ hours, assuming that its as good as #1 or better) will probably be well worth it in comparison to average FPS's which you only spend around 4 hours on for the same price.
Ghen @ Oct 13th 2008 1:24PM
I'm a big fan of the campaign, not so much about the online so this news is depressing to say the least.
lgndk11r @ Oct 13th 2008 10:06AM
If it's just two years between releases, then I'm alright with paying. Kind of like the Half-life 2 episodes.
ZaxCG2 @ Oct 13th 2008 10:57AM
When you put it that way it makes it easier to swallow.
Eh @ Oct 13th 2008 12:46PM
Except HL2 episodes were cheap and werent an integral part of the main game, theyre bonus content. This is more like them taking HL2 and making you wait 3 years before you can use the gravity gun.
TheSipe @ Oct 13th 2008 10:11AM
I think Activision might be crapping all over my favorite developers. I might end up remembering fondly their early days and ignoring their present, ala the Sonic games.
Jakka @ Oct 13th 2008 11:28AM
Stopped reading after "Activision".Hello, Blizzard's been going down around the time they've revived Illidian in WoW and brought out a multi-dimensional spacefaring race that couldn't drive their own fucking spaceship in WoW:BC.
More dedicated(or wary)players will go as far as saying Blizzard went down since W3, so I don't think we really need to get Activision involved.I can safely bet Blizzard planned it at least a year in advance and simply waited till BlizzCon to announce it.
Haggard (Mr.ESC resurrected on a... thursday?!) @ Oct 13th 2008 3:52PM
You try keeping that thing steady at 88mph
Chris @ Oct 13th 2008 10:11AM
Is he saying they will be seperate products? I dont think so, i think he clarified that they are not going to be seperate products.
Sonic @ Oct 13th 2008 10:47AM
They have already announced officially that the game will be a "trilogy."
Mike @ Oct 13th 2008 10:15AM
So the two follow ups are expansions.... but they'll FEEL like full games.... the pricing will be based on the content in the product.... does that mean they'll FEEL like charging full retail for the expansions?
Yea, I'm still suspicious of this - they haven't sold me yet.
acefondu @ Oct 13th 2008 10:18AM
Exactly!
Gehodra @ Oct 13th 2008 7:04PM
Ah yes, the truthiness of the scenario.
If you THINK about it, maybe the games are just expansion packs. But doesn't charging full price FEEL like the right thing to do?
t_m @ Oct 13th 2008 10:21AM
If it works out as three full games, then i'm not sure that'll work... cos it'll be more boring having each campaign be too long.
Yet if it works out as only expansion packs, i'm not sure if the hardcore fans will want to wait a year for each pack.
Seems risky either way...
Jeff @ Oct 13th 2008 11:42AM
I think one thing Blizzard is forgetting is that, although I'm sure they feel like a bunch of brilliant game designers working on the best game ever, how many of us are going to feel like paying for and playing through a very long Starcraft II campaign three times? It's going to start to feel like the same shit/different race.
Jón @ Oct 17th 2008 6:02AM
That's basically what you paid for before, with WarCraft and StarCraft expansions. Except now there's an actual difference in the gameplay between each one.
Hashbrown Hunter @ Oct 13th 2008 10:29AM
This just hit me: if each race has their own game, then who will the player fight in the single-player campaign? Themselves???
Hunting_phoenix @ Oct 13th 2008 10:51AM
I haven't been following this closely (since I realized not long ago that I like RTS, I just stink, and therefore should not buy them) but it sounded to me almost like one story, but from three points of view.
Again, I've only looked at a bit of info on this, so I may be way off.
Nick8708 @ Oct 13th 2008 11:16AM
Each race has a game...meaning each game has a different race as the focal point for the player's control. That doesn't mean the other races are excluded from showing up as enemies in the game...or even as playable races. They've already said that each game would have one race as the focus, but that wouldn't exclude the other races from being playable.
343 Guilty Fart @ Oct 13th 2008 12:14PM
Wait, what's going on with multiplayer? Will all races be available in MP with just one disc? Cause frankly I couldn't give a crap about the campaign (ok, i kid) but for me MP is where it's at and I don't want to have to wait 3 years just to play as Protoss. Can someone confirm?
Xelloss @ Oct 13th 2008 2:22PM
@343 Guilty Fart
Multiplayer will be on every game unchanged, with campaign you will play as the terran in the game, but you have to be fighting the zerg or protoss.
Vcize @ Oct 13th 2008 2:25PM
Obviously all 3 races will be available for the multiplayer from the get-go.
bounchfx @ Oct 13th 2008 10:29AM
as long as we can play as all three races in online multiplayer in the first one that releases I fail to see a real problem
ZeroCorpse @ Oct 13th 2008 2:00PM
Some people don't get off on multiplayer. That's why. We should not have to wait to play the other races in three separate games, when the previous game had everything in ONE game. This is basically making us pay three times for one full game.
All anybody wanted was a version of Starcraft that played on modern systems and didn't look like ass. Instead, they're taking it as an opportunity to nickel & dime us with episodic content and pay-to-play features. They've gone WoW-model on us.
Vcize @ Oct 13th 2008 2:27PM
Every indication is that all 3 races will still be playable in the campaign in each of the 3 releases, just that the story will "focus" around a different one in each.
If you spent half the time reading about it that you do complaining about it you would have seen this by now.
I fully expect each of the three games to have a campaign that is as long as the campaign in the first one. It's doubtful that you'll be getting the same game for 3x the price, but rather 3x the game for 3x the price, with the option for less if you don't want it.
Matt Rix @ Oct 14th 2008 10:15AM
Vcize is 100% right. People need to realize that they will still get to play all 3 races in the campaign, but it'll FOCUS on a single race. I think it's awesome.
xtrm @ Oct 13th 2008 10:30AM
Come on people, have some faith in Blizzard..
33degrees @ Oct 13th 2008 10:35AM
No kidding, people take every single bit of news in the most negative way. I for one, am happy that I'll be getting 3 times more starcraft than I was originally expecting
cjshrader @ Oct 13th 2008 10:37AM
Now that the initial shock of this is over, I really don't see the problem. The people who just want to play the multiplayer are not affected at all. The people interested in the story, like me, are getting a ton more story in each release than we would in all of Starcraft. Additionally, they're throwing in more high-quality scenematics and new gameplay elements (Doing missions and such) and I'm sold.
They've even said that you'll get to play as other races in each version, they just won't be the focus of the campaign. I think a lot of people are (unsurprisingly) overreacting.
cjshrader @ Oct 13th 2008 10:38AM
Did I really write "scenematics"? What is wrong with me?
Zertoss @ Oct 13th 2008 11:30AM
Spend enough time on the internet, and your spelling goes down the tubes.
Vcize @ Oct 13th 2008 12:13PM
I thought that was a pun...
Ryan @ Oct 13th 2008 11:00AM
Scrap these games!!! Build a Starcraft MMO First-person shooter! I want ships that require multiple players to operate. I want Zerg players that have adjustable AI goons that follow them to simulate swarm numbers. I want different progression systems for each race: terran weapons licensing, zerg evolution tech based on what they consume, and a series of unchangeable decisions for the protoss. I want seamless PvE and PvP play combined. And, I want it in a couple years, so get started on this Blizzard!
Mike @ Oct 13th 2008 10:59AM
When has Blizzard released crap?
Ever?
Have a little faith folks.
Deatharea @ Oct 13th 2008 1:19PM
They have, it's called WoW
Mike @ Oct 13th 2008 1:55PM
Sure, the most successful game ever is total crap.
ZaxCG2 @ Oct 13th 2008 11:00AM
I hope they're taking forever because they're making sure its EXTREMELY balanced for multiplayer.
Nick @ Oct 13th 2008 11:13AM
I don't understand why people are so upset.
I don't want to sound like a fanboy, but Blizzard is giving us three times the singleplayer experience we might've expected, and soaking it with lore. If you're a multiplayer guy, you can just get the first pack, and if you're singleplayer, aren't you happy that there's a full campaign every year that you can rely upon to be incredibly polished and well done? I mean, given some of the crap that's passed off for $60, I'm glad that I'll be able to shell out for a game I know will be worth it.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Oct 13th 2008 11:22AM
Cause I don't want to wait until 2012 to play the Protoss single player?
Nick8708 @ Oct 13th 2008 11:38AM
Yeah man, that brings up another interesting point. Retail games, PC or console, tend to all fall at the same price point regardless of quality. It isn't usually until after release that the bad games prices go down to a more appropriate level. I'm not really a huge fan of Starcraft, but I'd be willing to bet that if there were a way to measure the value-to-price ratio of games (I don't think ratings/scores help much), all three of these games bundled for the same price as a single game would be off the chart.
Unfortunately, with games you don't always "get what you pay for" since for the most part all games, regardless of quality, launch at the same price point; whatever is standard on the platform. It isn't until weeks or months after a launch that the actual value of a bad game will be reflected in the price, if this happens at all. If gamers were used to games launching with the price that reflected their quality, there might not be as much dissension about a developer/publisher wanting to put out a much higher quality game than the standard (assuming, this may turn out not to be true) and charge more for it.
But of course, they're only charging more to those who want to play all the single player campaigns. They're giving gamers the option, which is really smart. If they tried to charge more for the higher quality (again, assuming) in a single box and it cost $100+, it'd be a tough sell to the less-than-diehard fans.
wiredknight @ Oct 13th 2008 12:28PM
No. No they aren't. Anyone who played the first one knows it was divided into three parts, one for each race. It is unreasonable to think that fans of the original would expect them to be separated into three titles, rather than included in the same package.
The original was "incredibly polished and well done," and still had lengthy campaigns. And they released them as one game. There's absolutely no reason they can't do it again.
Ihavepants @ Oct 13th 2008 5:41PM
Well, yeh there is. By the sounds of it they've completely redefined how the singleplayer campaign works, made each factions campaign a lot longer and more in depth.
We will see when we play Wings of Liberty, until then everyone really can't complain because we don't have enough information either way yet.
FChavez @ Oct 13th 2008 11:34AM
The expansions better be contain extra characters and stuff for MP, I ain't paying $50 or $60 every year, just for new SP campaings and the same MP experience. And with all those rumors of Bnet being monetized...I don't like where this is going...
Nick8708 @ Oct 13th 2008 11:41AM
They may contain extra MP stuff, but the additional games are primarily about long, involved, and hopefully fun SP campaigns focusing on one particular race. If that's the kind of thing that interests you, then buy it. Otherwise, if you really like the MP more than the SP, you only need to buy one...
As far as BNet being monetized, they did an interview with the same guy who said it wasn't going to be subscription based, but he didn't really say much else other than alluding to the possibility of charging for optional services.
theturtle363 @ Oct 13th 2008 11:35AM
geez, i dont even care about Starcraft but that is a fucking terrible idea.
Geoff Gibson @ Oct 13th 2008 11:49AM
Goodbye StarCraft 2...
Hello Dawn of War 2!