Blizzard Shift to StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swarm

[exfileme]

Blizzard is now entering into "Heart of the Swarm" development.

Blizzard Shift to StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swarm : Read more

 

[dark_lord69]

Can't wait!

 

[eklipz330]

"We always have a lot of ideas and there's been some design work on it, but hardcore art and programming is just now starting to begin. It's too early to estimate, but as soon as we can get them out there, we'd love to."

They JUST started? Well, I don't expect this to be out in the next two years, seeing how it is blizzard. Diablo III might be out by then.

And I certainly don't expect a GOTY edition with all three expansions for another 5. *sad face*

 

[FATAL STR1K3]

woot woot! looking forward more to D3 though..

 

[Guest]

Adding more units is just going to make it all the more difficult to keep it balanced.

 

[eklipz330]

[citation][nom]Kami3k[/nom]Yawn. I'll laugh when it has a $60 price tag again.[/citation]

I was just about to edit my post, but yeah this would not be a surprise at ALL. I don't expect to see a price drop on WoL for years to come. I hate greedy companies = /

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]Kami3k[/nom]Yawn. I'll laugh when it has a $60 price tag again.[/citation]
Especially when it's the same game as the first one. Albeit with improved graphics and some new units.

 

[2real]

[citation][nom]eklipz330[/nom]I was just about to edit my post, but yeah this would not be a surprise at ALL. I don't expect to see a price drop on WoL for years to come. I hate greedy companies = /[/citation]
What company isn't greedy? They're all out there to make money. If you don't agree with the company's tactics, then don't buy the game.

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]2real[/nom]What company isn't greedy? They're all out there to make money. If you don't agree with the company's tactics, then don't buy the game.[/citation]
Hey, that's exactly what I did. No way am I paying $60 for SC2. I haven't and I don't plan to, ever.

 

[Guest]

ehh

 

[cryogenic]

[citation][nom]FATAL STR1K3[/nom]woot woot! looking forward more to D3 though..[/citation]

I you imagine that Startcraft 2 will cost 180$ in the end (3x60$ each act. Probably the most expensive game all time, considering it's only one game (in 3 acts) and not a game + 2 sequels)

then you can pretty much expect that Diablo 3 will have a subscription model like WoW! Which is really sad, but I don't see Blizzard becoming less greedy so long as they still are one of the top games companies, and more importantly one of the top PC only game companies, but most important of all, it seems to work for them.

 

[segio526]

It's not like they're breaking new ground on it. The engine is already made and parts of the story should already be set in stone. They just need to make the Zerg campaign and add a bunch of multiplayer maps.

 

[2real]

[citation][nom]sdfgdf[/nom]ehh[/citation]
so you're not going to pay for a good game, unless you don't like RTS games

 

[adikos]

whats all this 60 dollars for the expansion? blizzard has always priced its expansion sets at about half the price of the original package. I havent seen blizzard deviate from that since its first expansion through to its most recent with WoW. the sequels will probably be 39.99 which is reasonable imho.

when you see proof that HoTS will be 60 bucks, let me know. otherwise its just trolling.

as for D3, i dont understand this speculation about a monthly fee, i just dont see it, and likewise, until blizzard says otherwise i'll assume it will follow the trend of the previous two diablos and be free while utilizing battlenet.

remember WoW is their cash cow and with their secret MMO in the works, I dont expect blizzard to have to charge for diablo3. they have enough money amassed already.

the only thing i find daunting is the fact that blizzard said it would be 18 months till HoTS came out, which in blizzard time sounds right. i'm just not a fan of blizzard time.

 

[haze4peace]

Activision owns Blizzard. That's why it will cost $60 per expansion... in fact that's why it costs $60 instead of $50

 

[stingstang]

[citation][nom]adikos[/nom]whats all this 60 dollars for the expansion? blizzard has always priced its expansion sets at about half the price of the original package. I havent seen blizzard deviate from that since its first expansion through to its most recent with WoW. the sequels will probably be 39.99 which is reasonable imho.when you see proof that HoTS will be 60 bucks, let me know. otherwise its just trolling.as for D3, i dont understand this speculation about a monthly fee, i just dont see it, and likewise, until blizzard says otherwise i'll assume it will follow the trend of the previous two diablos and be free while utilizing battlenet.remember WoW is their cash cow and with their secret MMO in the works, I dont expect blizzard to have to charge for diablo3. they have enough money amassed already.the only thing i find daunting is the fact that blizzard said it would be 18 months till HoTS came out, which in blizzard time sounds right. i'm just not a fan of blizzard time.[/citation]
I second not being a fan of blizzard time. Especially with Starcraft. I appreciate the effort they put in to balancing the units all out, but really, I think they spend far too much time on that. Just release the game and let the players give feedback to make the process faster. It REALLY doesn't matter until the tournaments start.

 

[borisof007]

People who complain about the Price tag of Blizzard games clearly has no business playing any RTS, MMO, or Hack and Slash game. ALL of Blizzard's games are developed with the player and the quality of the game in mind and have always delivered a $100 gaming experience for only $60.

Each of these games are full 8-10 hour campaigns plus multiplayer. That's no worse than any Xbox game with XBOX live compatibility, except Blizzard makes good games and most people don't.

 

[Guest]

You dummies who did not buy SC2, are dumb. The game is awesome. That being said, people who did not play or did not like the original SC are probably not going to be converted by SC2, you either like this kind of game or you do not. People generally fall into one of three categories: 1. Blizzard style RTS players, 2. C&C style RTS players, 3. Neither. Only the first category is eligible to really like SC2. Having played a couple of the C&C style RTS games, they just do not have the style, skill and balance (of a Blizzard title), no matter how much snazzy live action and similar gimmickry they put into it.

 

[Trueno07]

Do we even know the price of these expansions?

Nope.

 

[Darkerson]

Im not quite as worried about the price as much as I am about how long it is gonna take to come out. Im sure everyone will be able to save up and afford it by the time it finally does release. This is Blizzard we are talking about, after all

 

[ElysianMerc]

[citation][nom]eklipz330[/nom]They JUST started? Well, I don't expect this to be out in the next two years, seeing how it is blizzard. Diablo III might be out by then.And I certainly don't expect a GOTY edition with all three expansions for another 5. *sad face*[/citation]
You have to think though, they don't have to build the engine, just mod the game. So it shouldn't be too long.

 

[borisof007]

[citation][nom]Kami3k[/nom]Give me one reason why StarCraft should be at 60 dollars when they have taken out features like LAN, it's only 1 campaign. [/citation]

1. New Battle.net integration with Starcraft, Achievements, Cross-Game friends list
2. To play the multiplayer, you don't need the additional 2 games, the first game is still fine enough
3. LANS were popular when people didn't have good broadband connections. Now that we do, LAN play isn't really necessary. Additionally, it's to help combat piracy, and Blizzard deserves that, even if it's to eliminate a hardly used feature. And besides, I'm sure someone will crack it anyway.

For the amount of hours you would pour into Starcraft 2, $60 is chump change compared to say... Almost 90% of all console games ever. Would you say the same things regarding Bungie and the Halo franchise? Why did they have to release more and more games, why couldn't it just be one big story with the whole storyline wrapped in one game?

OH YEAH, because it would be 40 hours long you dolt. That's why they make multiple games, the story is so friggen huge it'd be stupid to make one game with all of it in it. If you think a 10 year dev cycle was bad for Starcraft 2, imagine if all 3 campaigns were in one. We'd have waited for another 10 years.

 

[orionantares]

The next expansion release will be Soon™.

 

[2real]

[citation][nom]Kami3k[/nom]Give me one reason why StarCraft should be at 60 dollars when they have taken out features like LAN, it's only 1 campaign. And no I don't care if it's as good as 3 different ones combined, it's still ONE race's campaign.So since they only care about money, and yes I know all companies care about money but there are better ways to go about doing it. Why should I expect it NOT to be $60 dollars as well? They are merged with Activision. The company that charged 15 dollars for 5 maps, 2 of which were already in the old game! Blizzard has shown it's was less of a merger and more of a take over by Activision with it's actions.[/citation]
who the hell lans these days? get with the times you can still sit next to each other and play on battle net

 

[RADIO_ACTIVE]

Don't worry we have at least 5 years to save up the $60 lol!