- Status
I'll laugh when I will have to buy both $60 expansions in order to continue playing custom games on Battle.net 2.0, and cry when I actually do it, only to find that the custom game system will *still* be a mess.
[citation][nom]pirateboy[/nom]Diablo 3 will disappoint because of subscription play.At least Torchlight 2 will be a true multi-player game.[/citation]
Wtf, did you get "subscription play" from? Because you have to have a battle.net account? Way to spread misinformation!
Wtf, did you get "subscription play" from? Because you have to have a battle.net account? Way to spread misinformation!
hardwaretechy
Distinguished
- Jun 15, 2008
- 124
- 0
- 18,710
For all you people complaining about the $60 price tag:
#1: If you bought WoL, you know its worth $60.
#2: Before WoL was released, Blizzard already said MONTHS ahead of time that each game released would cost $60 individually.
#3: Before WoL was released, Blizzard said that each game is NOT just an expansion, but a full game.
#4: Before WoL was released, Blizzard said that each game will have as much content as the first.
So, really, nobody should be in shock & awe about the price tag or content of the upcoming games. The content will be a FULL GAME. They will come out no sooner than 1 year separated, perhaps 2. You buy more than 1 game a year don't you? $60 is the regular price for a full blockbuster game. There should be no whining about the price unless Blizzard delivers us a sub-par game (which is unlikely to happen).
When you look at an excellent game with 3 installments over 5 years for $180, thats a lesser evil than buying every CoD game that comes out for 5 years ($300 price tag there).
#1: If you bought WoL, you know its worth $60.
#2: Before WoL was released, Blizzard already said MONTHS ahead of time that each game released would cost $60 individually.
#3: Before WoL was released, Blizzard said that each game is NOT just an expansion, but a full game.
#4: Before WoL was released, Blizzard said that each game will have as much content as the first.
So, really, nobody should be in shock & awe about the price tag or content of the upcoming games. The content will be a FULL GAME. They will come out no sooner than 1 year separated, perhaps 2. You buy more than 1 game a year don't you? $60 is the regular price for a full blockbuster game. There should be no whining about the price unless Blizzard delivers us a sub-par game (which is unlikely to happen).
When you look at an excellent game with 3 installments over 5 years for $180, thats a lesser evil than buying every CoD game that comes out for 5 years ($300 price tag there).
Reason for $60 price tag because well you cant buy what you could today for $60 that you could when SC1 was released for $50. Same reason I cant buy a new Mustang GT for 13-14k like I could in the early 90's. Time goes buy price of shit goes up due to drop of value in the dollar. Im amazed video games haven't hit $75.00+ as the standard yet.
Do people that complain about having 1 campaign even know anything about it? Doing all 29 missions on brutal isn't a quick or easy feat, and there's fairly amusing tidbits after each mission that makes the whole thing more enjoyable. Customizations, plot choices, multiple side plots, and achivements also adds to the experience. It isn't just a plain, straight forward cycle of dialogues and missions. To me it was a really surprisingly immersive campaign.
The game isn't even just about the campaign. The multiplayer experience is what you'll be doing after you're done with the single, assuming you start with the single. I've played a little over 300 games of mp, and they're all with friends and we have fun. You can log on, easily see if you have any friends on, and be playing a match within 2 minutes. Additional features such as record tracking, match replays, looking at your friends rankings, and potraits rewards makes it all worth it. I can see who of my friends suck, watch replays of why I suck, and half of the time play against people who suck more then I do, thanks to the (odd?) matchmaking system.
You might not care for a particular feature, but there's something for everyone. Single players. Casual players. Hardcore players. Achievement whores. Challenge seekers. I wasn't going to buy it in the first place, but most of my friends were and I wanted to play with them, and it turned out well.
Now, seeing how the core engine and bnet is already there, paying $60 for the other 2 games might be a bit much. I'd say $40, but maybe Blizzard will suprise me again.
PS "Activision Blizzard, Inc., formerly Activision, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATVI) is the American holding company for Activision and Blizzard Entertainment, majority owned by French conglomerate Vivendi SA." Activision doesn't own Blizzard.
The game isn't even just about the campaign. The multiplayer experience is what you'll be doing after you're done with the single, assuming you start with the single. I've played a little over 300 games of mp, and they're all with friends and we have fun. You can log on, easily see if you have any friends on, and be playing a match within 2 minutes. Additional features such as record tracking, match replays, looking at your friends rankings, and potraits rewards makes it all worth it. I can see who of my friends suck, watch replays of why I suck, and half of the time play against people who suck more then I do, thanks to the (odd?) matchmaking system.
You might not care for a particular feature, but there's something for everyone. Single players. Casual players. Hardcore players. Achievement whores. Challenge seekers. I wasn't going to buy it in the first place, but most of my friends were and I wanted to play with them, and it turned out well.
Now, seeing how the core engine and bnet is already there, paying $60 for the other 2 games might be a bit much. I'd say $40, but maybe Blizzard will suprise me again.
PS "Activision Blizzard, Inc., formerly Activision, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATVI) is the American holding company for Activision and Blizzard Entertainment, majority owned by French conglomerate Vivendi SA." Activision doesn't own Blizzard.
HolyCrusader
Distinguished
- Jun 28, 2006
- 141
- 0
- 18,690
Although $60 for each game is disappointing (should thus turn-out to be the way they bill it), what disappoints me is that they claim to only *just* be starting on HotS.
This goes against some of what Blizzard said in the past. At one point (early 2009 I think), they claimed in an interview that much of the single player game was finished but that they decided to split Stacraft 2 into 3 separate games so that they could get the game out before the end of 2009. So I wonder - did they change so much of the game in that their past work on the Zerg campaign is invalidated, or did they never even start on it, planning all along that they'd release Starcraft 2 in three separate installments?
This goes against some of what Blizzard said in the past. At one point (early 2009 I think), they claimed in an interview that much of the single player game was finished but that they decided to split Stacraft 2 into 3 separate games so that they could get the game out before the end of 2009. So I wonder - did they change so much of the game in that their past work on the Zerg campaign is invalidated, or did they never even start on it, planning all along that they'd release Starcraft 2 in three separate installments?
the_wolf88
Distinguished
- Jan 26, 2010
- 52
- 0
- 18,640
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News First credible report of RTX 5090 FE with melted connector appears — third-party cable likely cause- Started by Admin
- Replies: 50
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Tested: Intel's Arrow Lake 140T iGPU mostly maintains an edge over AMD's older 880m
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 24
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram