Blizzard Shift to StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swarm

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]borisof007[/nom]-snip-[/citation]

1 - Achievements? There's not really that many, and they're not that interesting. Cross-Game friends list? I don't have any friends that play WoW. It might be interesting with Diablo 3, but even then, it's not that amazing.

2 - If you want to play multiplayer with all the units they'll add and features and eventual bug fixes I'm sure, yeah, you'll need the expansions.

3 - not everyone has that good of a broadband connection, and it still doesn't solve the issue of if you've got 4 people in one place who want to play together. You're playing on one connection, which makes LAN far, FAR better.

Why are you comparing Starcraft 2 to console games? It's not a console game, and it's not marketed to console gamers.

I also fail to see your 'complaint' that the story would be longer? I've invested waaaay over 40 hours into games like Oblivion, Fallout 3, Dragon Age, and Fable.

If it's got a great story, length isn't an issue. And really, to be honest, the story of WoL didn't end up that great.
 
@Kelavarus

You asked for one good reason for Starcraft 2 to be at $60 (counting out LAN play and 1 race campaign), not one good reason that it should be $60 for YOUR TASTES.

Starcraft 2 is tailor made for millions of fans who can enjoy it to its fullest extent. Whether or not that matches to what your expectations are is a moot point.

I gave reasons that Starcraft 2 should be worth $60, and also vouched why it's 1 campaign is plenty enough. I'm sorry you don't have a broadband connection, think that 1 campaign is plenty, and don't have friends who enjoy multiple Blizzard titles. The fact of the matter is, most of Blizzard's fans love Starcraft 2 and its sales figures speak for themselves.

Also, to counterpoint your dumb arguments:

2. Bug fixes are issued regardless if you have the additional titles
3. Not everyone has a good broadband connection (for multiplayer).... TOO BAD! This game wasn't made for them. If you feel slighted, then wait for a no b-net crack to come out and then buy the game. At least you'd still be showing your support to a powerhouse development company.

4/5. I'm comparing it in a sense of campaign durations. Most games now have a very short campaign, anywhere from 6-10 hours for single player. Starcraft 2's single player campaign fits right in that slot.

Additionally, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Dragon Age, and Fable are all RPG's too, not RTS's. If anything, you'd be comparing this to other RTS's like C&C4.

5. I'm not complaining that the story should be longer, YOU ARE! You're the one complaining that it's only 1 race and not 3. Would you have rather had shorter stories that had less to offer, but offered all 3 campaigns? What then? 2 expansions that cost 60 dollars to further expand the story of each race each time? You'd end up at the same place at the end!!!!! Your argument makes no sense.
 
cool, so that should take about another 20ft.

I've started measuring Blizzard release schedules using the geological shift of the river near my house...
 
I bet if Blizz kept their mouth shut about the Protoss and Zerg Campaigns and just gave us WoL there would be a lot less complaining. Then announce the next one a few months before it's out. But noooo just because they announced they're making three ppl get all pissy they're not getting it all in one... And they say blizz is greedy...
 
[citation][nom]Lucuis[/nom]I bet if Blizz kept their mouth shut about the Protoss and Zerg Campaigns and just gave us WoL there would be a lot less complaining. Then announce the next one a few months before it's out. But noooo just because they announced they're making three ppl get all pissy they're not getting it all in one... And they say blizz is greedy...[/citation]

They always have announced expansions shortly after the game's release. Anyone that can't see why these three games weren't all combined, considering the metagame, isn't worth listening to their opinion of Blizzard...really.
 
The argument that it should be 3 campaigns makes perfect sense. This is a sequel to a game. Sequels are expected to be better/bigger or at the very least the same. Starcraft 1 had three campaigns, one for each race. It is simply expected that the sequel should be the same way. It isn't, and that's a problem.

There not being more than one campaign to play as in most of the Dawn of War games is a complaint I always have, but the expectation that it would be there never existed. (not counting the almost choose-your-own-adventure ones) There wasn't ever one single game with that much content. Everytime an expansion was announced it was 'yay, new stuff'.

With starcraft, it was 'yeah, uh, hey guys. We're turning one game into three, have fun buying three full priced things with the same content as the original!' That's why people are complaining.
 
[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.[/citation]


trolling is when some one browses internet board with the sole intent to start s---. specilatinga bout a game'sprices even ina bitchy manner is NOT trolling mr.internet cop so chillyoru hillson calliung folks trolls.
 
now to coment on the article. I agree gamecompanies in general ahve gotten greedy blizzard especially , 30 bucks for every pack of WoW and on top of that you have to pay 14 bucks amonth to play it AFTER you bought the disk .. they don't even give you free months when you buy the disk. if that isn';t greedy i don't know what is.

that said i lost interest in this game when i found out they were splitting it ,again pay more for less content. games keep gettign shorter and shorter every eyar it seems , and manya re releasing with "premium" DLC content ready the day they ship , which says they are pretty much releasing less to us and asking more from us.
 
[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]
Sure but even lots of SC fans not buying game such highly overpriced.
If blizard sell other 2 parts for 60$ as well that will be 180$ for single game. Even MMOs with all expansions bought separately can fit to that price and bring more fun for bucks you spent.
 
i payed $94 for the Collectors edition, and the regular version costs $47 here in Norway. And ill gladly pay that when the sequel hits.

Can't for the life of me see what all the money fuzz is about. i mean,
the Collectors Edition has almost the same cost of a regular AAA game...

 
[citation][nom]gnookergi[/nom]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.[/citation]

Same here.

Developers are really playing us for fools these days. Back then you'd purchase 1 game with all the bells and whistles to go with. Today, we get uber-hyped semi-complete games like SC2 AND have to pay for extra content which SHOULD have been there e.g. Oblivion + the DLCs.

This is why I stick to mods & indie games like mount & blade. This industry has gone too far. Sadly, as the games continue to become more casual (i.e. dumbed down), they'll always be a swarm of low-IQ kiddies ready to throw cash at these thugs. Screw SC2!
 
[citation][nom]False_Dmitry_II[/nom]... With starcraft, it was 'yeah, uh, hey guys. We're turning one game into three, have fun buying three full priced things with the same content as the original!' That's why people are complaining.[/citation]

The only way that argument makes sense is if you completely disregard the singleplayer. Anyone who thinks the singleplayer equates to 1/3 of a game just isn't paying attention.

There are valid arguments for not buying this game, but lack of content is not one of them.
 
[citation][nom]segio526[/nom]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.[/citation]

Actually, they'll probably improve the engine by adding the stuff they removed from their previous engine - like water (which is harder than it looks if you do it the WC3 way, as you need overlapping pathing maps).

[citation][nom]adikos[/nom]whats ... blizzard has always.[/citation]This is a new Blizzard, if you hadn't noticed. I don't think we'll ever again see the Blizzard we previously admired.


 
honestly tho, i dont mind paying 60 for a quality game, and when it comes to blizzard you know that they will deliver quailty. i have payed 60 for games that are utter crap, shame on me. but at least with blizzard you know you are getting a quality product.
 
[citation][nom]gnookergi[/nom]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.[/citation]

I suppose you'll have to learn to enjoy re-playing your current stable of games, and expect to never own another game. I'm not sure why people struggle to understand 1) economic inflation and 2) massively increased development costs. As I've said in other posts, the reason games (not just SC2, but a host of other PC games, and certainly console titles) are seeing a price hike is the same reason why gas isn't 25 cents per gallon any more - a 3-5% increase in economic inflation per year. Not to mention that the rag tag crew that developed lost vikings now consists of hundreds of the gaming industry's top minds who spend an amount of time measured in decades on these projects.

You can wear your Che Guevera shirt and headbang to ROTM while I reap years of utility from SC2. Which for the record, is well worth the reasonable and minor cost increase.
 
[citation][nom]doopydoo22[/nom]The only way that argument makes sense is if you completely disregard the singleplayer. Anyone who thinks the singleplayer equates to 1/3 of a game just isn't paying attention.There are valid arguments for not buying this game, but lack of content is not one of them.[/citation]

Amen brother. It's a full game in and of itself. And more than that - it obliterates the other members of the genre hands down. Cinematics, story/plot/character development, voice acting, mission novelty, the list goes on...
 
Hey if someone thinks it's not worth $60 to them than it's not worth $60 to them. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Sorry Blizzard, I was very disappointed with how SC2 turned out to be, especially after many years of development and 100 million dollars. I felt you guys spent more time working on BNet instead of working on the game.

And yeah, Activision definetly plays a very big role. Yah, only after Activision acquired blizzard that there was such thing as a pet and mount store for World of Warcraft.

I'll wait for the bargain bin. And yeah, it's not worth $60 bucks to me also.

 
[citation][nom]Nossy[/nom]Hey if someone thinks it's not worth $60 to them than it's not worth $60 to them. One man's trash is another man's treasure. Sorry Blizzard, I was very disappointed with how SC2 turned out to be, especially after many years of development and 100 million dollars. I felt you guys spent more time working on BNet instead of working on the game. And yeah, Activision definetly plays a very big role. Yah, only after Activision acquired blizzard that there was such thing as a pet and mount store for World of Warcraft.I'll wait for the bargain bin. And yeah, it's not worth $60 bucks to me also.[/citation]

I agree completely that if a game isn't worth the money to you, then pass on it. However, the big gripe if many is the 10 dollar increase. Would you buy it if it was $50? If so, you need to consider what I said I about inflation. In 20 years, you will be paying a lot more ($80-$100) for games, and not because of greedy corporations, but because they pay their employees twice as much, and consequently, you as well will be making a higher hourly rate and as a percentage are paying the same relative amount. This isn't the place to explain economies of scale. Suffice it to say that pouting about the market demanding higher payments from consumers over time is just silly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom