5:30 PM on 11.12.2008
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
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] |
|
| |
-icon.gif){kind=icon}
52 comments + 134338 views
Right, and I'm Mary Poppins.
No, really, I am.
My bullshit meter is off the charts
Fuck post-WoW Blizzard. They're asshats now.
In other news, Colette just killed a Chocobo.
I wouldn't be so sour if they weren't making Battle.net pay to play and over simplifying SCII.
I'm sure that they had a lot of trouble convincing Activision that selling the game 3 times was a good thing.
Uh huh. The extra cash just happens to be an extra benefit of the bettered experience. Right.
I'll just wait for the Starcraft 2 Battle Chest. Sure, it'll be a few years down the line, but I'll be able to get all three games at a discount.
Bunch of whoreshit.
Whatever, it'll be awesome. All the haters can just pfft.
Yeah, sure, whatever. But wouldn't 3 Starcraft 2's actually make it Starcraft 2-4?
so did you guys here that Shigeru Miyamoto and Cliff Blizenski are teaming up and making a new game? it's rumored to be like a Mario platformer except you can't jump anymore and you use mushrooms with chainsaws on them to attack.
wait...wut? 3 Starcraft 2's? did i miss something?
And that's why they're releasing them for $20 a piece.
I thought they were just taking an "expansion" way of doing it. There's a chronological order to this right? I just don't get why everyone is all surprised about Blizzard dropping expansions when they've been doing this fucking forever. The real question is why they're doing two expansions instead of three
oh...nevermind.
I'll buy the first one and pirate the other 2.
So each release to be at expansion pack prices? I mean money was never one of the motivators after all. They're just really nice and want to give us the best experience.
I'm sure this game will turn out just fine. I won't be playing it.
Reasons why they're asswipes now:
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?
IT PRINTS MONEY!
I can believe one guy saying this, as long as he doesn't work for Activision management :P
I expect most people will buy the first one for multiplayer and pirate the rest.
Yeah these business hate to even think about money.
The only reason Blizzard charges a monthly fee for WoW is so that they can collects mountains of cash and have it burned.
I can just picture him saying this only barely keeping the laughs in.
Since they are splitting the game into 3 for the sake of experience and not money they should donate the proceeds of two of the games to charity.
Still waiting for the $30 "battle chest."
They really should just put it into one big pack of 3 discs and charge a little more for it. I wouldn't mind THAT at all.
To turn this into a positive thing they've got to do one of two things:
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.
of course it's a dumb idea.
Its hilarious how dumb they are to think that people are dumb enough to swallow that bullshit hook, line and sinker.
I repeat my stance the from the first asking: Blizzard has enough money from WoW that it's believable they can finance around 5 games simultaneously (3 Starcraft campaigns, Diable 3, WoW expansion). They aren't separating campaigns the size of the originals they're releasing multiple games worth of content like a musician who comes out w/two cds full of music at once. This decision's only bad if crappy missions have been left in.
this is still bullshit. I'll gladly wait an extra 2 years for blizzard to finish the game so I can play all 3 campaigns from day one.
whatever happend to "when its done, it's done"?
Ok, so, how does this work? If I buy the version of Starcraft 2 with the Terrans, can I still play Protoss and Zerg in multiplayer?
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.
You know what... I believe him.
Blizzard doesn't need the money and lets face it, the more Starcraft, the better for us.
*ahem* Pokemans Red, Blue, Green, Yellow, Silver, Gold, Sapphire, Arse, Vommit.
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?
The immense amounts of bullshit coming out of every orifice of that guy's body distracted me from whatever message he was trying to convey.
Well considering the entire original Blizzard team that made the original Warcraft, Starcraft, and Diablo left the company, because the higher ups turned into greedy ass clowns and canned any original projects (Starcraft: Ghost, I'm looking at you) and told them to focus on World of Warcraft . . . what can you expect from the new cronies?
They can't charge you monthly for it, so why not make you pay 3x the ammount of one game?
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.
I don't know why, but the word BULLSHIT suddenly appeared in my mind. In giant bold lettering.
Hardcore gamers? Hardcore Complainers is more like it.
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)
The only way the 3 game model is acceptable is if each game is released at $30 or less, and you know that's not happening.
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.
@Squeewupiwupi
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!
who does this tool think he's fooling with that line of bullshit? it's bad enough that they're selling us SC2 three times over but to stand there and tell us that it has nothing whatsoever to do with money is fuckin' insulting...
I will forever be a starcraft fan, not fanboy - so it'll give me more incentive to have 2 friends buy the other campaigns so I don't have to buy 3 times the disks
I'll believe him when they sell the games for 20 bucks a piece.
Returning Dtoiders: login now to post a comment
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just Create an avatar now - it's fast and free: PLUS you also get your own gaming blog and begin posting stories and uploading videos in our open community area that may also appear on our home page. Sign up and we'll guide you through it, it's easy and 100% anonymous.