According to Blizzard COO Paul Sams, Blizzard isn’t trying to tickle your pocketbooks by splitting StarCraft 2 into three individual games. In a recent interview with Videogamer, Sams defended the decision by noting that money was never a “part of the conversation.” It was done to provide a “better experience” for the consumer.
From the interview:
I guarantee it. I give my word. There was never, ever a conversation where we said, ‘let’s do this because we’re going to make more money’. I guarantee it. As a matter of fact the sole reason we did it was because we thought it was going to be a better experience. Anybody that says otherwise is not correct. It is absolutely not what we did it for.
While I congratulate Sams for being so blunt, I find it particularly hard to believe that the faces around the boardroom didn’t light up when the idea of splitting the title was being thrown around. Regardless, I have high hopes and I’m starting to buy into the fact that three
StarCraft 2s isn’t a bad thing. What do you guys think?
[via VG247]
| BBcode help |
| [b]Bold text[/b] |
Bold text |
| [i]Italic text[/i] |
Italic text |
| [url]http://www.dtoid.com/[/url] |
http://www.dtoid.com |
| [url=http://www.dtoid.com/]Web link[/url] |
Web link |
|
| [img]http://www.example.com/robot.jpg[/img] |
 |
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
45 comments | showing # 1 to 45
|
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
5:30 PM on 11.12.2008
| 
No, really, I am.
1.- 1 x 60 = 60, 3 x 60 = 180, theyre lying
2.- They also said they wanetd to start charging for Battle.NET WTF? battle.net sucks compared to other game matchmaking systems, anyone who's ever payed DOTA can testify to this.
3.- how bout that bit that theyre only focusing on games wich they can profit on a yearly basis ?
douchebags
IT PRINTS MONEY!
The only reason Blizzard charges a monthly fee for WoW is so that they can collects mountains of cash and have it burned.
They have to make each game cheaper. This one's simple, and is the most likely option for them. It may be a completely redesigned system with huge amounts of story in each box... but they're still all three the same in that they all produced from one development cycle and not three separate ones.
Or, they get the engine built, and then spend equal amounts of time developing content for each installment. That means if you've got three races for the first game, you've got to give us more for the next game. If that won't work with "the plan" then you've got to add new mechanics. Big mechanics.
Blizzard -must- admit to themselves that the situation they've created won't allow them to follow the simple, "It's an expansion! Charge full price!" method. They've got to eat their shit sandwich and step up on this one.
whatever happend to "when its done, it's done"?
If so, I get the feeling that I would get more value for my dollar getting just one version of SC2 than all of them. If not, then screw you, Blizzard.
Also, I want to be able to select as many units at one time as I like. Get on that, Blizzard.
Blizzard doesn't need the money and lets face it, the more Starcraft, the better for us.
Regardless, I've only played Starcraft a few times so I don't really care. But I'm sure all of you who like the game will still go out and wait in line through the harsh cold. Buy all 3 and run home so you can rub the boxes over your naked bodies and upload the videos to Pornotube so that Stephen Conroy can have an excuse to censor Australian Internet, all while you prepare to send in your recently materialised Zerg to invade Australia and force us Aussies to go to Candy Mountain while you steal our Kangaroos, Lamingtons and Kidneys.
seriously... why the hate?
I honestly see this as being a horrible move on their part. You buy the first of the three, and you can't Vs Zerg or Protos? What gives, if you want the whole experience you gotta spend $150. I honestly don't see this benefiting anyone BUT the Blizzard people. Are the people on battle.net going to only be able to play as Terran until the Zerg or Protos games get released? It's like buying a copy of Diablo 2 and only being able to pick one class until you buy another copy of the game!
BULLSHIT Blizzard. Utter Bullshit.
Each of the three games has a campaign that's as long or longer than the combined 3 racial campaigns of SC1
You only have to buy the first game for full ZvTvP multiplayer gameplay.
They're not going to charge a subscription fee for Battle.net but they are going to have special features that you can pay for and/or DLC. (I asked the lead dev of Diablo III during their Blizzcon panel)
And on top of that, if they are charging for Battlenet, that's just ridiculous. Getting at the minimum 2x the normal revenue from what should be one game, and then charging for online pay is the most blatant greed I have ever seen from a video game company. I really am not going to purchase this if Battlenet costs money.
So you mean, like, some people are going to have nicer things than me in SC2 and D3, breaking the perfect balance of the original RTS? WOO! THAT IS FUCKING AWESOME!