View Poll Results: What do you think of the Starcraft II Trilogy announcement?
- 56. You may not vote on this poll
Thread: Starcraft II trilogy Poll
October 11th, 2008, 04:39 PM #21TychusFindlay Guest
October 11th, 2008, 04:59 PM #22
Tychus I think you're a little overzealous and should stop mowing down people who'd prefer one product. Not everyone is into Blizzard and SC or are well off to the extent where they don't care about money. If you think about it, from the point of view of the original plan, you get 1 game for ~$160, which is quite a lot. Not to mention the hassle of keeping more discs. Especially if someone buys a new computer solely for SC2 and finds out that he'll need to spend that much more to play the game properly.
I have ambivalent feelings about making SC2 a trilogy for the above reasons and I haven't decided on a final verdict. But even if I had, I wouldn't cut people in half for daring to disagree with me.
October 11th, 2008, 05:33 PM #23Cannon Fodder
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Rep Power
We don't know the pricing so it's too early to assume $160 immediately off the bat. You never know if the expansions will be 30 or less.
October 11th, 2008, 05:40 PM #24
Exactly. I don't understand why everyone's b*tching at Blizzard for when they don't know the details yet. I'm betting that it'll be $50-ish for Wings of Liberty and $30 for the other two. After all, Blizzard said these are basically expansion packs. If they said Starcraft 2 will ship with only the Terran campaign but with a full multiplayer and skirmish suite and the other campaigns will be added in expansion packs, people wouldn't be b*tching at them like this.
October 11th, 2008, 05:40 PM #25
They can't be less because they're just as functional as the first. This is exactly the reason I said not to refer to them as expansions because people assume they'll cost and contain less than the original. They'll contain exactly the same amount of SC2, and will work without requiring either of the other two 'packs', so there's no reason for them to be cheaper at all.
October 11th, 2008, 05:42 PM #26Light Guest
All Im saying is that they could have released all of this in one game and not chop it up into 3 games and sell them for more. Yes, I have the money, but why do i have to pay more anyway? What, is it going to be ''released'' sooner? you only get a part of it sooner, but you still have to wait for the rest, not to mention if you're a protoss fan.
Last edited by Light; October 11th, 2008 at 05:49 PM.
October 11th, 2008, 06:08 PM #27
Last edited by Hodl pu; October 11th, 2008 at 07:22 PM.
October 11th, 2008, 06:09 PM #28Cannon Fodder
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Rep Power
Was Frozen Throne not as functional as Warcraft 3? It had full campaigns, it doubled the amount of creeps and spells, and the singleplayer was MUCH more focused than Warcraft 3's bland kill X system of quests.
Expansions are cheaper because they don't need the full brunt of tech to create. It would be very bad marketting if each 'expansion' was the same full price.
October 11th, 2008, 07:27 PM #29TychusFindlay Guest
I'm not mowing down people. I'm just saying that calling Blizzard money *****s is uncalled for and ridiculously hypocritical. What I said was a natural response. I won't apologize for it.
Obviously, you have no idea on the specifics of this. You aren't getting the same amount of game for 3x the price.. Each campaign will be expanded with more cinematics, and adventure-style "overworld" mechanics and screens, and many more missions.. as well as more multiplayer content and balancing. Also, obviously, you weren't informed about the mini-campaigns which will allow you to play the race you want to play with so damn badly. Just like i said, your position on this comes from you not taking the time to find the specifics.. just like I said.
But, do you really mean to tell me me you wouldn't have bought another expansion pack after Brood Wars for the original StarCraft and would have flamed Blizzard for giving us more content? Surely that isn't the case... What about if Brood Wars was never released? What if Blizzard wanted to save us that money and cut back on their ambitions and gave us half the game it could have been. Would you be as much of a fan as you are now? I HIGHLY doubt it!
Why don't you read the interviews and the news. I think you are SADLY mistaken on why this came about. I say so because I've been having this same discussion with dozens of other people and they completely change their mind once they realize that we're getting 3x the game for 3x the price.. The price isn't even the problem. I would pay that just to get it sooner. The problem is them making the game great and getting it to us. Would you seriously complain about paying such a small price for more of these features? If you say yes, why the hell aren't you *****ing about Brood Wars or The Frozen Throne? All of these are adding the same content. The only difference is that the story is StarCraft 2 is much more epic (Probably more so than any RTS seen to date.. maybe even any game ever) and will now be much more fleshed out. Do you mean to tell me you want 3x the game for the same price? Why would you even expect that from Blizzard when you would never even think to ask that of another company. That's the hypocrisy I'm talking about. Blizzard just guaranteed us more multi-player and single-player content.. What's there to complain about? Once you get over paying, it's all good things. Think about how much an additional expansion pack could have benefited the original StarCraft.
Understand that we aren't getting one game split into three. We are getting 2 expansion packs.. one more than we're used it.. We are getting three games in three. What's wrong with that? More of a great thing can ONLY be good once you understand it correctly.
Also, you do realize each new product will be bring more units to the mutliplayer, right? Why do you have a problem with this but not Brood Wars and The Frozen Throne? This is the hypocrisy I'm talking about and is the reason I will not apologize.
I'm saying your money problems couldn't be as bad as you are saying or else you shouldn't even be able to afford the electricity to run the game. Complain about that.. not having the gift of being able to pay to get more content that will last you so long. Also, I never told you how to spend your money. In fact, my post wasn't even to you. In effect, you were eavesdropping.. which is incredibly rude. But, it doesn't matter.
My lifestyle is no better than your's.. it's probably far worse.
I can tell by a lot of your responses that you still don't have all the information on this "new arrangement". Here's a link to an interview with Chris Sigaty...
You should also watch the panels where they announce this. The announcer tells you exactly why they did this and the other options they considered.. Thank God they chose this one! I think you'll agree once you read and watch all of this and get past the measly $59.99 (immediately after release). If you're going to complain about that, why were you so pro-one expansion in other topics? Just because you have the gift of having another expansion complete with new multi-player features (Yes, these products contain news multi-player maps and additions to that and the campaign editor.. as well as bringing stronger balancing earlier)
I have faith you can amass a measly 0.16 cents a day to pay for an expansion every year or so.
Last edited by TychusFindlay; October 11th, 2008 at 08:08 PM.
October 11th, 2008, 09:20 PM #30