The StarCraft II Launch and Discussion Post

Page 5 - 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.
I'll get this game some day soon. I'm really waiting for the modder content to hit so there is much more to play than just the out of box RTS. Star Craft was the first RTS that showed off very different strategies for each faction where balance wasn't achieved on a 1 to 1 unit basis. That's what I think made it really great and why many gamers just didn't get it.
 
[citation][nom]zaznet[/nom]I'll get this game some day soon. I'm really waiting for the modder content to hit so there is much more to play than just the out of box RTS. Star Craft was the first RTS that showed off very different strategies for each faction where balance wasn't achieved on a 1 to 1 unit basis. That's what I think made it really great and why many gamers just didn't get it.[/citation]

I completely agree
these hardcore gamers are willing to spend 2-3k on their rig alone but too cheap to spend 60-100 on a game which really is a drop in the bucket compared to the investment that's sitting on there desk or floor
it's called pay to play whether u like it or not
 
[citation][nom]swine[/nom]It blows my mind that there are people calling themselves gamers and are bitchin about the cost of games. Go take a tour of what it takes to make such a game. Company's are in the biz to make a profit and continue their work. Anyone really calling themselves a gamer or hardcore spends 1000's of dollars on their PC's. So what is $60 in the grand picture of it all. This game rocks! For us old farts gaming since the days of Wolfenstein and Duke Vaporware Nukem, this game has an old feel with a new look. Maps are clean and well thought out. For the first time I can say I'm really enjoying the single player missions. Usually I just skip this and focus on the mulitplayer, but the storyline is fun with the different challenges. Again, I miss the LAN party of old and wish someone would really think about that aspect for gamers. Friends and I were planning big events for this and Diablo3 but nothing now.... anyways, the game is good.[/citation]
I completely agree
these hardcore gamers are willing to spend 2-3k on their rig alone but too cheap to spend 60-100 on a game which really is a drop in the bucket compared to the investment that's sitting on there desk or floor
it's called pay to play whether u like it or not
 
I'll be skipping this one. I liked the original game a lot, but really liked the LAN capability. I can't always count on their being internet access where I am. I'm OK with them splitting up the game to get more $$$, but dropping true LAN support is crossing the line in my opinion. To take such an unnecessary step backwards is silly. I'll be skipping Diablo 3 also if they do the same.
 
Well the big quesion of the game is the 3 parts its broken into, I know at the last blizzcon the did a audience vote, and attendees went for this option.

The problem is -

1. Buy copy now and get

a. Approx 50 bucks cost
b. Online play - all races and content for online play ranking
c. 1 race offline play mode campaign

2. The other expansion part 2
a. Approx another 50 bucks
b. Same as before - online play no changes
c. part 2 of offline campaign
3. the 3rd expansion
a. approx another 50 bucks
b. same as before - online play no changes
c. part 3 offline campaign

Summary -

cost $150.00 total approx

get online play

and pay 50 bucks for each offline campaign

so 150 dollars for a game just to play offline campaign, when the 1st 50 gets you the online, save 100 bucks for offline content. This strategy is up for grabs success wise, most wont bother except few hard core fans willing to spend additional 100 bucks just for some offline content since no lan option is given. Sounds ok but the problem with this strategy is the game type, its a RTS, as traditional most RTS is about combat challenge of person or teams, not like RPG which offline content is more desired as its single player oriented. Offline content RTS is generally limited market and not played long term. Most dont play RTS single play campaigns for extended time frame, its about challenge combat with others that RTS types fall in favor to. So this extra expense for small offline content few the sales will be very poor for the other 2 parts, if the original content is fee based to add them in, which since its blizz / activision, activision typically nickle and dimes every penny from a player they can, so we are given a RTS game thats going to fail past the 1st part hype release. Least for now, unless they change its over all strategy of content style for offline based users.
 
Downloaded the game last night, installed this morning. The game told me I should update my video drivers, so I installed the latest from the ATI site. Now my computer won't boot into windows. Not only is my computer broken, but I never actually got to play the game. Time to upgrade to Windows 7 methinks.
 
Since SC2 2nd and 3th installments will just have tweaked units, perhaps some new units and a new story line I think Blizzard should treat it as a downloadable content. I don't see any additional content/game play they could put into the game.
I like to compare this to Oblivion and Fallout 3 (regardless of game type). These games have much more content and depth that the RTS and it cost less then after it was completed the DCs came with new story and units but the overall game has not changed.
 
To be completely honest, I'd literally pay $150 for a Blizzard game. I just wish they would make more! I've been playing their games since Warcraft 1. I've probably had more replay value out of their games than all of my other games combined, on any gaming system. I'll be playing Starcraft II more than any 3 $50 games that I've purchased in the last few years, I can guarantee that.

Also, I traded in two games (that I bought for $10 each earlier in the day) to get my copy of Starcraft II... haha
 
I think they blew it with the language options. Just because I live in Latin America doesnt mean I want to play in Español or Português. Had to download american version of the game, so no manual, no box, no nothing and I still payed almost twice as much as the local version. but heck... at least I will be playing in english. nothing against spanish and portuguese, just prefer to play in english. It's like watching a movie, who would rather watch the dubbed version instead of the original thing?
 
i got the game on the morning of 27th and i`ve been in it since then. SC2 is great, love it, i`m glad i bought it.

Blizzard ftw...
 
I'll have to wait until Aug/4 (Dell home standard free shipping). Got it for $49 ($45+tax) so it's not $66 ($60+tax). I'm fine with waiting a week.
 
[citation][nom]jsx82[/nom]I completely agreethese hardcore gamers are willing to spend 2-3k on their rig alone but too cheap to spend 60-100 on a game which really is a drop in the bucket compared to the investment that's sitting on there desk or floorit's called pay to play whether u like it or not[/citation]

Wrong wrong wrong!!! Investing money in a rig is just that, an investment. One that may last for years. Video games, on the other hand, offer temporary entertainment. Game companies now charge $60 for a game because they need to recoup the money they spent on advertising it, and because corporations like Activision and Ubisoft control the games market and get to set the market price.

You go ahead and be a sucker- pull that money out of your pocket and pay full price or, if you're stupid enough, buy the special edition. I'll be smart and wait six months for the price to drop to a semi-reasonable level.
 
Investing money in a rig is just that, an investment.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me! Personally I invest to make money, not lose it. You spend time and money topping out a rig for $2500, its de-valued soon as you break the seal on the parts. In 3 month the next generation of hardware is out, knocking down the price point even worse. Investment in what. Its a hobby to piss money off on and have enjoyment. So the pc lasts for 3 years as an investment as you call it. I've got games I spent $50 on that have lasted 10 years... to pay an extra $10 bucks, woopeefreakindoooooo. I'm sorry you feel like you getting anal poked by "the man". Maybe its just that as I grow up my hobbies and fun time costs more and I really don't care... I'M HAVING FUN!
 
You want to bitch and make a difference about the price about an item highly jacked up due to over marketing and total B.S., get into pharmaceuticals. Makes the gaming industry look like pure childs play.
 
[citation][nom]JPHD[/nom]I think they blew it with the language options. Just because I live in Latin America doesnt mean I want to play in Español or Português. Had to download american version of the game, so no manual, no box, no nothing and I still payed almost twice as much as the local version. but heck... at least I will be playing in english. nothing against spanish and portuguese, just prefer to play in english. It's like watching a movie, who would rather watch the dubbed version instead of the original thing?[/citation]

The same hapend to me, pay $150 USD for play terrible dubbed version, for Latin America only Portuguese and Spanish 🙁 🙁


Pienso exactamente igual pagar 2,100 pesos por un juego en español esta terrible !
 
[citation][nom]jasonw223[/nom]To be completely honest, I'd literally pay $150 for a Blizzard game. [/citation]
come to Latin America and they cost 150 usd.
 
I just wonder if this game can be played on my Toshiba Satellite A505-S6025 with the following hardware:

CPU: i3-330M @ 2.13 GHZ, 3MB L3 Cache
Chipset: Mobil Interl HM55 Express
Video: NVIDIA GeForce 310M with 512 GDDR3
RAM: 4GB DDR3 @1055 MHz
OS: Windows 7 Professional (64-bit)

Does anyone know if there is benchmark software for this game as there is one for FF XI and FF XIV? Thanks.
 
[citation][nom]swine[/nom]You want to bitch and make a difference about the price about an item highly jacked up due to over marketing and total B.S., get into pharmaceuticals. Makes the gaming industry look like pure childs play.[/citation]

Thanks to morons like you willing to spend spend spend, the gaming industry gets away with charging $60 for their craptastic games. And we're not talking about the drug industry here buddy, get it straight.
 
[citation][nom]Dirtman73[/nom]Wrong wrong wrong!!! Investing money in a rig is just that, an investment.[/citation]

Anyone who calls any of their tech gear an 'investment' needs to look up the words Obsolescence and Depreciation.

It's a computer, not a Rembrandt.
 
Seriously, you spend $2k on a gaming system, but refuse to buy a game? Is all that speed just for show? Wow, those benchmark numbers are really impressive.

Too bad that while we're having fun with our games for a year or two, you're saving that precious $60. But then again, you're probably just looking to steal it on torrents, so why do I even bother. Justification + entitlement is a dead-end debate.
 
Did they just take down the news post by Kevin Parrish regarding SC2 user complaints? Or have they just accidentally misplaced it? I just refreshed the page and apparently it no longer exists. It's also no longer listed under "News". That would be pretty funny, becasue many people where criticizing the legitimacy of the article, as well as Parrish's definition of "embargo". lol. If they're going to retract an inaccurate news post they should at least offer a formal retraction, and not just delete it as though it never existed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom