Blizzard Denies Milking StarCraft II

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

AceDiamond:

Yes because what I totally said was that I hate capitalism and the idea of profit. I am so glad you're here to do my thinking for me and put words in my text boxes.

Now then what I was saying is that not only are they lying about their motivations but they're being a dick about it. Why not, oh, say, release all 3 versions at the same time? That way people can get the campaign they want AND play multiplayer without having to buy two versions of the same damn game just to satisfy the multiplayer half of the equation as soon as possible.

Have you seen how long it takes them to make a game? :P

Hell, development time was one of the reasons they did this in the first place. It was coming down to them having to make the choice to A.) cut out a huge chunk of what they wanted to put in the game, and essentially release a game that was not up to their standards (which they have a history of simply not doing: see SC Ghost and Warcraft Adventures), or B.) release one massive game but delay it for YEARS. In the end, the Trilogy way sort of answered both of these. They'll be able to get the multiplayer out the door quicker for people who want that, but will also be able to do everything they want in the singleplayer campaign.

I don't think you understand what they're doing here. If you buy *one* of the trilogy games, you will have full multiplayer access. Period. All three races, all the units, in skirmishes and multiplayer. Any updates that come with the other two games will be patched in (you know, like they do these days with Brood War changes anyway).

TsunamiWombat:

KSarty:
Even if the trilogy announcement was the only thing they were doing, I still wouldn't believe him. But with the announcement that Battle.net will soon have some fees in place, and the rumor that Diablo 2's MP will be pay to play, its obvious that they really are just going for the money right now. And that doesn't even bother me, I've always understood that it is about money. That is the point of starting a business, to make money off of your talents. What bothers me is them doing this for their own wallets and then desperately trying to convice us that it is for our benefit, that they were only thinking about us.

This rumor has been disproved. Blizzard has come right out and said they will not make Diablo 2 nor Battle.net Pay to Play.

http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=10972023506&sid=3000

Wow, thats weird because it was a Blizzard employee who stated the Battle.net thing just a few weeks ago. They must not have liked the customer response or something. I'm looking for that interview now, I can't remember where I read it.

EDIT: found it

Neosage:

Khell_Sennet:

Neosage:
Is it me or is the starcraft universe very similar to the 40k one? you know TERRANS (Earth in 40k is called Terra) Zerg= A weaker version of the Tyranids and Protoss= Eldar, but 40k came out first. Though I admit that 40k did pinch some of those ideas from various different things but for Blizzard to copy them again, can't they copy separate ideas?

Blizzard has fully acknowledged that both Warcraft and Starcraft were parodies on the Warhammer/40K franchises. Games Workshop and Blizzard have always been fine with this, even making fun of it from time to time, and because one is a parody of the other, they've both taken bits and pieces from eachother's IP. Nothing new about that.

But re: Terra, that's not a Warhammer thing, or is it related between the two games. Terra Firma (latin, lit. Solid Earth), or Terra for short, is one of the less common but still well known proper names for earth. Warhammer 40K sometimes refers to Earth as Terra, but the Terra from Starcraft is unrelated, it is not Earth. It's not in the Milky Way galaxy, or the Sol system, it's entirely fictional. Thus Starcraft Terrans are not Earthlings, but some 40K humans are the descendants of earthlings.

I suppose, Oh and about Terra I did know that it wasn't GW's idea though i just think its a little coincidental that they are sci-fi similar setting and just HAPPEN to have the same name for the first human planet

Actually, there are plenty of other games that use 'Terra' as a name for an Earth but not Earth type place if they're feeling lazy. Sounds more...exotic. Like calling a car an automobile.

TsunamiWombat:

santaandy:
Well, despite my misgivings for fans who will have to shell out more, I kind of like the idea in theory at least, as I was only interested in the Terran SP campaign anyway. Perhaps a decoupling of the SP and MP packaging would be better; release the MP first (which will not be faction-divided), then release the SP campaigns later; SP campaigns could function like expansion packs. Everyone could pick up the full MP at the same time and then their choice of SP later. As long as it was price:quality:quantity balanced appropriately, I think that'd be an even better model still.

Okay, this -IS- what they did. PLEASE read the news posts people. Full undivided multiplayer will come with the FIRST game, so if the singleplayer campaign doesn't interest you, you can just buy the first release and play online forevar.

Actually, what I meant was sell the MP client *separately* as a stand alone-game, *not* bundled with an SP campaign. That way you won't have to buy the first campaign just for the MP if you don't like the SP campaign that's bundled in. I actually *do* like where this setup is going, I just wish they'd go a little further.

I understand how the gameplay experience can be enhanced through splitting up and extending the single-player campaign, but it wasn't the single-player campaign in SCI that made the game so successful. Millions of Koreans don't watch competitions between players to see who can beat the single-player campaign in the shortest amount of time or with the highest score - they watch players face-off against each other in multiplayer matches. It is the multiplayer aspect of SCI that made it so wildly successful and sustained its popularity over this past decade, so if Blizzard is really intent on just improving the gameplay aspect they should mainly focus on making the versus play better. Most players of SCI I know, including myself, only played through the single-player campaign once or twice, and if Blizzard puts in campaigns with 30+ missions apiece for each of the races, then no matter how great the gameplay and story are I feel that will make players only more likely to drop the single-player after after their first go-through. Everyone, including Blizzard, should know that it is the multiplayer aspect of SCII that will make or break the game.

Just for clarification:

All Blizzard is doing is basically announcing two expansion packs. Apart from that, they're only arranging the campaigns a bit differently than they did in sc1. I really don't get what all the big fuss is about.

Also, if you want to keep playing the multiplayer, you pretty much have to buy both expansions. Of course you'll still be able to play without the expansions, but since most people will buy the expansions, you'd be isolating yourself from the main community. Just take a look at how many people play Starcraft without the Broodwar expansion.

Drunken Jedi:
Just for clarification:

All Blizzard is doing is basically announcing two expansion packs. Apart from that, they're only arranging the campaigns a bit differently than they did in sc1. I really don't get what all the big fuss is about.

Also, if you want to keep playing the multiplayer, you pretty much have to buy both expansions. Of course you'll still be able to play without the expansions, but since most people will buy the expansions, you'd be isolating yourself from the main community. Just take a look at how many people play Starcraft without the Broodwar expansion.

Yeah they are expansions, but Blizzard has not announced the pricing yet, thats what the fuss is about. If they decide to charge full game price for them, then we are getting hosed.

KSarty:

Drunken Jedi:
Just for clarification:

All Blizzard is doing is basically announcing two expansion packs. Apart from that, they're only arranging the campaigns a bit differently than they did in sc1. I really don't get what all the big fuss is about.

Also, if you want to keep playing the multiplayer, you pretty much have to buy both expansions. Of course you'll still be able to play without the expansions, but since most people will buy the expansions, you'd be isolating yourself from the main community. Just take a look at how many people play Starcraft without the Broodwar expansion.

Yeah they are expansions, but Blizzard has not announced the pricing yet, thats what the fuss is about. If they decide to charge full game price for them, then we are getting hosed.

Eh, it'll probably be 30-40 USD. Blizzard said if it FELT like a full price game it would be, but since the two expansions won't be bringing new multiplayer you couldn't get patched for free, no way I can see them charging 50-60 USD.

i am sorry but this is totally the right direction for the game. Having it be able to be spread out and giving more enhancements is a good thing.

CantFaketheFunk:

AceDiamond:

Yes because what I totally said was that I hate capitalism and the idea of profit. I am so glad you're here to do my thinking for me and put words in my text boxes.

Now then what I was saying is that not only are they lying about their motivations but they're being a dick about it. Why not, oh, say, release all 3 versions at the same time? That way people can get the campaign they want AND play multiplayer without having to buy two versions of the same damn game just to satisfy the multiplayer half of the equation as soon as possible.

Have you seen how long it takes them to make a game? :P

Hell, development time was one of the reasons they did this in the first place. It was coming down to them having to make the choice to A.) cut out a huge chunk of what they wanted to put in the game, and essentially release a game that was not up to their standards (which they have a history of simply not doing: see SC Ghost and Warcraft Adventures), or B.) release one massive game but delay it for YEARS. In the end, the Trilogy way sort of answered both of these. They'll be able to get the multiplayer out the door quicker for people who want that, but will also be able to do everything they want in the singleplayer campaign.

I don't think you understand what they're doing here. If you buy *one* of the trilogy games, you will have full multiplayer access. Period. All three races, all the units, in skirmishes and multiplayer. Any updates that come with the other two games will be patched in (you know, like they do these days with Brood War changes anyway).

So in short, exactly what I was saying. If they come out with the Protoss campaign first and you want to play the Terran or Zerg campaign you have to not only wait but you have to buy 2 copies of Starcraft II unless you think you can wait 6-12 months for the version you want just so you can play multiplayer. But obviously nobody will so they'll all buy the first campaign just to get their multiplayer fix.

and yes I do know how long it takes to make a game. On the other hand I have no idea how long it takes to make 3 campaigns with the same engine after you've compeltely smoothed it out, but I bet it takes a lot less time than making a whole game from scratch, especially given how it doesn't take the dev. time of Neverwinter Nights to make a module for Neverwinter Nights.

Do they expect anyone to believe they're not milking the game? After the way that they've shamelessly milked WoW for years? I'm pretty sure there was a pretty long period of time where they weren't developing anything other than stuff for WoW. So yes, they are milking it, and the overly defensive response just proves that. I don't think they know how to not milk something anymore.

Nathan Meunier:

"The fact of the matter is it's absolutely, positively untrue about us trying to stretch it out and milk it. People think that it was a monetary driven decision. I can absolutely, positively tell you, with 100 percent certainty, that that was not part of the conversation," he said.

Amnestic:

A business wanting to make money?

Perish the fucking thought.

Exactly. My feelings on Blizzard are meh, but I don't like the fact that the CEO took the time out to lie to us.

AceDiamond:

CantFaketheFunk:

AceDiamond:

Yes because what I totally said was that I hate capitalism and the idea of profit. I am so glad you're here to do my thinking for me and put words in my text boxes.

Now then what I was saying is that not only are they lying about their motivations but they're being a dick about it. Why not, oh, say, release all 3 versions at the same time? That way people can get the campaign they want AND play multiplayer without having to buy two versions of the same damn game just to satisfy the multiplayer half of the equation as soon as possible.

Have you seen how long it takes them to make a game? :P

Hell, development time was one of the reasons they did this in the first place. It was coming down to them having to make the choice to A.) cut out a huge chunk of what they wanted to put in the game, and essentially release a game that was not up to their standards (which they have a history of simply not doing: see SC Ghost and Warcraft Adventures), or B.) release one massive game but delay it for YEARS. In the end, the Trilogy way sort of answered both of these. They'll be able to get the multiplayer out the door quicker for people who want that, but will also be able to do everything they want in the singleplayer campaign.

I don't think you understand what they're doing here. If you buy *one* of the trilogy games, you will have full multiplayer access. Period. All three races, all the units, in skirmishes and multiplayer. Any updates that come with the other two games will be patched in (you know, like they do these days with Brood War changes anyway).

So in short, exactly what I was saying. If they come out with the Protoss campaign first and you want to play the Terran or Zerg campaign you have to not only wait but you have to buy 2 copies of Starcraft II unless you think you can wait 6-12 months for the version you want just so you can play multiplayer. But obviously nobody will so they'll all buy the first campaign just to get their multiplayer fix.

and yes I do know how long it takes to make a game. On the other hand I have no idea how long it takes to make 3 campaigns with the same engine after you've compeltely smoothed it out, but I bet it takes a lot less time than making a whole game from scratch, especially given how it doesn't take the dev. time of Neverwinter Nights to make a module for Neverwinter Nights.

So your complaint is that Blizzard are forcing you to buy their games? Do they have a Blizzard Representative holding a gun to your head at the game shop ordering you to purchase all three versions. No? Well if you don't want to pay early you don't bloody well have to, you can just wait. Or you could not, if you so choose. They're not making you do anything, if you choose to buy two or three campaigns that's your decision and your own inability to wait for whichever campaign you want is on your head.

Though why on earth you'd wait is beyond me. As far I as know, aren't the campaigns meant to be a logical story progression? Surely if you choose to sit out and wait then you're going to miss a chunk of the story.

And who's to say that it's all smoothed out? The fact that they're still making balance changes to Broodwar and Frozen Throne shows that just because they've released a game doesn't mean it's smoothed out. Considering you have little-to-no idea of how Blizzard work during their development stage (nor do I) making presumptuous statements like that seems rather silly, really.

Neosage:

I suppose, Oh and about Terra I did know that it wasn't GW's idea though i just think its a little coincidental that they are sci-fi similar setting and just HAPPEN to have the same name for the first human planet

TBF, Terra has been used for WAY longer than both GW or Blizzard. I believe that the basic idea came before Rebelstar Raiders back on the Speccy, and Star Frontiers also used it. Possibly even as far back as the 50's B Movies.

Imitation Saccharin :

Exactly. My feelings on Blizzard are meh, but I don't like the fact that the CEO took the time out to lie to us.

What makes you so sure Sams is lying?

Of course every business wants to make a profit - at the end of the day, their employees need to feed their families, after all. But that doesn't necessarily mean that every decision they make is financially-motivated.

This is a company that has a track record of refusing to release not one but two games - Warcraft Adventures and StarCraft Ghost - because they weren't going to be good enough. This isn't "It doesn't have sequel potential" a la Brutal Legend; these were games in beloved, extremely popular franchises that could have been complete turds but would still have sold like crazy.

Besides, it isn't like they don't already have a money-printing machine already :P

xitel:
Do they expect anyone to believe they're not milking the game? After the way that they've shamelessly milked WoW for years? I'm pretty sure there was a pretty long period of time where they weren't developing anything other than stuff for WoW. So yes, they are milking it, and the overly defensive response just proves that. I don't think they know how to not milk something anymore.

Define "milking"? Because since Nov 2004, they've put out two expansions (which you had to buy, yes), plus at least 12-15 major content patches (free other than monthly subscription)... for WoW. During that time period, they've continued to support and patch StarCraft, Warcraft 3 and Diablo 2 (for free).

AND they've been working on SC2 since WC3 Frozen Throne was done (2002/2003), various iterations of Diablo 3 since... well, at least before Blizzard North left to become Flagship, and whatever that "next-gen MMO" product is for two or so years now. So yes, they've been developing plenty beyond WoW :P

CantFaketheFunk:

What makes you so sure Sams is lying?

Because for them to not realize splitting up the game three ways would generate gobs more money, and had that as at least a con or pro on some big spreadsheet, means they're stupid or lying to us.
And I don't think they're stupid.

CantFaketheFunk:

This is a company that has a track record of refusing to release not one but two games - Warcraft Adventures and StarCraft Ghost - because they weren't going to be good enough.

Evidence?

CantFaketheFunk:

Besides, it isn't like they don't already have a money-printing machine already :P

As Amnestic said, a business makes as much money as possible. You can never have enough.

Seems to me like this is something they never would have done before the merger. Also, the rampant denials that they want Diablo 3 to be an MMO have me on edge as well. Perhaps they are being pressured to look for alternative forms or revenue for their games and this is what they came up with.

Doubtlessly their games will retain the kind of polish we expect from blizzard. I just hope I can afford gaming in a world where they seem to be making games in the price range of affluent teenagers and industry types. Or maybe I am just getting older and can't see myself shelling out 60$ each for 3 copies of Starcraft.

Imitation Saccharin :

CantFaketheFunk:

Besides, it isn't like they don't already have a money-printing machine already :P

As Amnestic said, a business makes as much money as possible. You can never have enough.

*ahem*

Actually my comment was in sarcastic jest to someone else who seemed to be implying that he was shocked Blizzard wanted anything to do with money, rather than saying that they're out to make as much money as possible. Of course they want to make money, but the best way to do that is to get happy customers who want to keep revisiting their brand and buy their products. Generally that means good quality. Yes, they've split SC2 into three bits but I have little-to-no doubt in my mind that whatever you pay for they will deliver it, be it one game or three.

Call my a Blizzard fanboy if you wish, but I have yet to be disappointed by one of their products and I doubt they're going to start a downhill spiral with SC2. As always, it's possible I'll be proven wrong, I just don't think it's very likely.

Amnestic:

Actually my comment was in sarcastic jest to someone else who seemed to be implying that he was shocked Blizzard wanted anything to do with money, rather than saying that they're out to make as much money as possible.

The claim made by the CEO is money did not enter the question. My arguement is that he is lying, as he runs a business and therefore it must have a least entered the discussion.
I cite you only in-so-far as you concur it is the logical assumption that blizzard is in the business of business (i.e.- making mulla).

Amnestic:

AceDiamond:

CantFaketheFunk:

AceDiamond:

Yes because what I totally said was that I hate capitalism and the idea of profit. I am so glad you're here to do my thinking for me and put words in my text boxes.

Now then what I was saying is that not only are they lying about their motivations but they're being a dick about it. Why not, oh, say, release all 3 versions at the same time? That way people can get the campaign they want AND play multiplayer without having to buy two versions of the same damn game just to satisfy the multiplayer half of the equation as soon as possible.

Have you seen how long it takes them to make a game? :P

Hell, development time was one of the reasons they did this in the first place. It was coming down to them having to make the choice to A.) cut out a huge chunk of what they wanted to put in the game, and essentially release a game that was not up to their standards (which they have a history of simply not doing: see SC Ghost and Warcraft Adventures), or B.) release one massive game but delay it for YEARS. In the end, the Trilogy way sort of answered both of these. They'll be able to get the multiplayer out the door quicker for people who want that, but will also be able to do everything they want in the singleplayer campaign.

I don't think you understand what they're doing here. If you buy *one* of the trilogy games, you will have full multiplayer access. Period. All three races, all the units, in skirmishes and multiplayer. Any updates that come with the other two games will be patched in (you know, like they do these days with Brood War changes anyway).

So in short, exactly what I was saying. If they come out with the Protoss campaign first and you want to play the Terran or Zerg campaign you have to not only wait but you have to buy 2 copies of Starcraft II unless you think you can wait 6-12 months for the version you want just so you can play multiplayer. But obviously nobody will so they'll all buy the first campaign just to get their multiplayer fix.

and yes I do know how long it takes to make a game. On the other hand I have no idea how long it takes to make 3 campaigns with the same engine after you've compeltely smoothed it out, but I bet it takes a lot less time than making a whole game from scratch, especially given how it doesn't take the dev. time of Neverwinter Nights to make a module for Neverwinter Nights.

So your complaint is that Blizzard are forcing you to buy their games? Do they have a Blizzard Representative holding a gun to your head at the game shop ordering you to purchase all three versions. No? Well if you don't want to pay early you don't bloody well have to, you can just wait. Or you could not, if you so choose. They're not making you do anything, if you choose to buy two or three campaigns that's your decision and your own inability to wait for whichever campaign you want is on your head.

Though why on earth you'd wait is beyond me. As far I as know, aren't the campaigns meant to be a logical story progression? Surely if you choose to sit out and wait then you're going to miss a chunk of the story.

And who's to say that it's all smoothed out? The fact that they're still making balance changes to Broodwar and Frozen Throne shows that just because they've released a game doesn't mean it's smoothed out. Considering you have little-to-no idea of how Blizzard work during their development stage (nor do I) making presumptuous statements like that seems rather silly, really.

Starcraft is to many people the definitive RTS. I never understood why, in fact I'm not even buying Starcraft II, fuck I didn't even play Starcraft I. This isn't about me this is about the people who worship this game like its the infinite power of Christ, and keep playing it many years after its release for, say it with me now, multiplayer

Since every campaign release will include the full multiplayer options anyway, it stands to reason that people will be so eager for more of their Starcraft multiplayer goodness that they'll buy the first race to hit shelves then probably buy the race they actually want to play the campaign for when it comes out later.

And these aren't expansion packs, people, these are full campaigns for each race. Don't tell me that they're suddenly going to change some aspect of the last release with a new one. As far as it sounds they are 3 releases of the same game with extended campaigns. But they know full well the power of the multiplayer and thus they will be getting more money for what is essentially a fragment of a game.

And tell me again why it takes so long to make another campaign. I posit that it in fact does not and therefore such a staggered release is pointless unless...they're trying to milk the franchise

Imitation Saccharin :

CantFaketheFunk:

What makes you so sure Sams is lying?

Because for them to not realize splitting up the game three ways would generate gobs more money, and had that as at least a con or pro on some big spreadsheet, means they're stupid or lying to us.
And I don't think they're stupid.

Of course they realized it. They're not stupid.

But that doesn't mean they based the choice on it. "Okay, so, if we do the trilogy we'll be able to actually do everything we want to do with the campaign, but won't have to delay getting the multiplayer out nor will we need to make gamers wait even longer for the full thing.

As a side result, we'll make more money."

They can have realized they'll make more money and still have it not a factor in the choice.

Imitation Saccharin :

CantFaketheFunk:

This is a company that has a track record of refusing to release not one but two games - Warcraft Adventures and StarCraft Ghost - because they weren't going to be good enough.

Evidence?

Er, honestly it's just something I know having followed their games closely over the years. I'm pretty sure WoWWiki has a decent explanation of Warcraft Adventures, at least. So no, I don't have any one specific source, but it's... pretty widely known if you've followed Blizzard.

Imitation Saccharin :

CantFaketheFunk:

Besides, it isn't like they don't already have a money-printing machine already :P

As Amnestic said, a business makes as much money as possible. You can never have enough.

Warcraft Adventures was practically complete by the time they canned it - at least, the expensive parts like animation and voice acting had all been finished. Given that it would have probably sold extremely well no matter how good it was, their decision to ultimately not release the title and not recoup expenses? That's pretty significant - and they didn't have Activision's pockets then, either (I'm pretty sure they didn't even have Vivendi to fund them, too.)

But they recognized that keeping their reputation was worth taking that loss.

I've told this story before, but it doesn't stop being significant. :P Before Blizzcon, I was talking with an acquaintance who happened to work at Blizzard over drinks one night, and he told me about how he'd seen one of the Blizz higherups come in to the office he shared and yell at - really chew out - the other person, and they were genuinely upset.... not that they'd be losing money or anything, but honestly furious that Blizzcon attendees weren't going to have the best experience possible. Even after years with the company, he told me, he was still struck by how often *that* was the mandate - the player gets the best experience we can give them - rather than "how can we make the most money?"

Feel free to take me - or him - with a grain of salt, but talking to Blizzard staff from Mike Morhaime on down, it's something that I genuinely and truly believe. Yes, they are a corporation, and yes, their employees do have families to feed. So of course the fact that a decision will be good financially is an awesome bonus. But that isn't necessarily *why* they'd make the decision.

wilsonscrazybed:
Seems to me like this is something they never would have done before the merger. Also, the rampant denials that they want Diablo 3 to be an MMO have me on edge as well. Perhaps they are being pressured to look for alternative forms or revenue for their games and this is what they came up with.

Well, why wouldn't they deny that they want D3 to be an MMO if they didn't want it to be an MMO? :P They've said time and time again that it won't be subscription based, though whatever form the "monetization" will take is still up in the air. In all likelihood, it'll probably be something like "for 2 bucks a month you don't have to deal with adds on Battle.net" or something along those lines.

AceDiamond:

Since every campaign release will include the full multiplayer options anyway, it stands to reason that people will be so eager for more of their Starcraft multiplayer goodness that they'll buy the first race to hit shelves then probably buy the race they actually want to play the campaign for when it comes out later.

And these aren't expansion packs, people, these are full campaigns for each race. Don't tell me that they're suddenly going to change some aspect of the last release with a new one. As far as it sounds they are 3 releases of the same game with extended campaigns. But they know full well the power of the multiplayer and thus they will be getting more money for what is essentially a fragment of a game.

And tell me again why it takes so long to make another campaign. I posit that it in fact does not and therefore such a staggered release is pointless unless...they're trying to milk the franchise

In the first Starcraft, if you wanted to play the Zerg or Protoss missions, you had to play through the Terran ones anyway.

They've said that they were always planning on doing one SC2 expansion - this is just one more game, and if the value is an expansion value, it'll be expansion price. If it's a full game value, it'll be a full game price.

They're actually doing some pretty detailed stuff with the Terran campaign (at least from what we've seen), and I wouldn't be surprised at all if they wanted to do similarly detailed - but different - things with the Zerg and Protoss ones. Hell, even if not, there's still scripting, recording, cutscenes, campaign balancing, brand-new campaign units (and corresponding models) to introduce... given how long it USUALLY takes Blizzard to make a game? It doesn't surprise me at all that they're staggering them like this.

The choice was between staggering them, or making players wait a much longer time for all three at once. They opted for the former to let players actually, y'know, play the game they've wanted to play.

CantFaketheFunk:

But that doesn't mean they based the choice on it.

The claim is it wasn't even part of the discussion.

CantFaketheFunk:

They can have realized they'll make more money and still have it not a factor in the choice.

Then they are stupid.

CantFaketheFunk:

Er, honestly it's just something I know having followed their games closely over the years.

Wikipedia disagrees with your claim on Starcraft Ghost, although the veracity of that source is questionable.

CantFaketheFunk:

But they recognized that keeping their reputation was worth taking that loss.

Yes, to keep making a profit later that is worth more then the resultantly dampened opinion.

CantFaketheFunk:

Even after years with the company, he told me, he was still struck by how often *that* was the mandate - the player gets the best experience we can give them - rather than "how can we make the most money?"

I doubt your story, but cannot disprove it except to say I request no more unverified objective statements please.

Blizzard has been milking the public for cash since World of Warcraft.
Honestly, this move doesn't surprise me, but it may have weakened the public's trust of Blizzard.
Honestly, THREE parts?
That's going a bit far, even for Blizzard.

I've played plenty of RTSs with 2-3-4 races where there were 2-3-4 campaigns, all for the original purchase price.

I understand selling stuff separately but I guarantee you it goes like this:

Sandwhich: $7

or you can but it

Bread: $1.50
Lettuce: $1.00
Meat: $3.00
Cheese $2.50

Oh look the total for the parts is $8.00. WHAT A SHOCK. It's simple psychology that you will sell more product at 3 payments of $20 than one payment of $50. People are stupid and like lower numbers after $ signs.

Take all the prices for all the Starcraft III SKUs and add them up and then look at the total product. Hmm, is this worth $120? (or whatever it will be). That's how you charge more and give less.

Neosage:
Is it me or is the starcraft universe very similar to the 40k one? you know TERRANS (Earth in 40k is called Terra) Zerg= A weaker version of the Tyranids and Protoss= Eldar, but 40k came out first. Though I admit that 40k did pinch some of those ideas from various different things but for Blizzard to copy them again, can't they copy separate ideas?

Where have you been? GW sued Blizzard over this ages ago. The exact outcome differs according to who you hear the story from though. Some say the case didn't hold up, others say they could have destroyed Blizzard even over Warcraft: Orcs and Humans, but they didn't. What we do know is that GW did come first, however, and that they like to sue a lot.

L.B. Jeffries:
It sounds like they realized Dawn of War 2 was going to be more innovative than their linear tri-campaign game and just couldn't stand being one upped at their own genre.

Good luck Blizzard, you're gonna need it.

I smiled. You know, when you compare zerg and tyranids...

and eldar and protoss...

oh, and terran and space marine...

What I'm trying to say is, Starcraft is a huge rip off of Warhammer 40k in the first place.

*crosses starcraft 2 off his to 'must get' list*

Frederf:
I've played plenty of RTSs with 2-3-4 races where there were 2-3-4 campaigns, all for the original purchase price.

I understand selling stuff separately but I guarantee you it goes like this:

Sandwhich: $7

or you can but it

Bread: $1.50
Lettuce: $1.00
Meat: $3.00
Cheese $2.50

Oh look the total for the parts is $8.00. WHAT A SHOCK. It's simple psychology that you will sell more product at 3 payments of $20 than one payment of $50. People are stupid and like lower numbers after $ signs.

Take all the prices for all the Starcraft III SKUs and add them up and then look at the total product. Hmm, is this worth $120? (or whatever it will be). That's how you charge more and give less.

Umm...you -do- know with those ingredients you can make -several- sandwiches? I mean...who the hell pays $1.50 for two slices of bread? 0_o You can buy a whole loaf for that. And a whole head of lettuce, several slices of ham and a block of cheese for what's listed there. The only reason people by the whole packaged sandwiches for $7 is convenience. Not that it's cheaper, which, in most cases it isn't.

GothmogII:

Frederf:
I've played plenty of RTSs with 2-3-4 races where there were 2-3-4 campaigns, all for the original purchase price.

I understand selling stuff separately but I guarantee you it goes like this:

Sandwhich: $7

or you can but it

Bread: $1.50
Lettuce: $1.00
Meat: $3.00
Cheese $2.50

Oh look the total for the parts is $8.00. WHAT A SHOCK. It's simple psychology that you will sell more product at 3 payments of $20 than one payment of $50. People are stupid and like lower numbers after $ signs.

Take all the prices for all the Starcraft III SKUs and add them up and then look at the total product. Hmm, is this worth $120? (or whatever it will be). That's how you charge more and give less.

Umm...you -do- know with those ingredients you can make -several- sandwiches? I mean...who the hell pays $1.50 for two slices of bread? 0_o You can buy a whole loaf for that. And a whole head of lettuce, several slices of ham and a block of cheese for what's listed there. The only reason people by the whole packaged sandwiches for $7 is convenience. Not that it's cheaper, which, in most cases it isn't.

^ This. Ingredients are almost always the cheaper option, you just have to bother buying them and taking them home and sometimes you simply can't be arsed or you want a sandwich right there and then and it's far easier to just buy a ready made stuff for a larger price tag.

Jackpot:

L.B. Jeffries:
It sounds like they realized Dawn of War 2 was going to be more innovative than their linear tri-campaign game and just couldn't stand being one upped at their own genre.

Good luck Blizzard, you're gonna need it.

I smiled. You know, when you compare zerg and tyranids...

and eldar and protoss...

oh, and terran and space marine...

What I'm trying to say is, Starcraft is a huge rip off of Warhammer 40k in the first place.

facepalm.jpg. Seriously. Did you even bother reading up about this? I'm fairly certain both Blizzard and GW are already far more aware of any sort of IP infringement than you are, what with the legions of properly trained lawyers they have at their beck-and-call. Is it a rip off? Yeah, probably so. Does that for some reason cheapen the series and make it less good than it otherwise would be if it weren't a rip off? Of course not. Starcraft is its own universe with its own rules, just like 40K is. Sure, one's a horse and one's a zebra but they're still different animals.

Jackpot:

L.B. Jeffries:
It sounds like they realized Dawn of War 2 was going to be more innovative than their linear tri-campaign game and just couldn't stand being one upped at their own genre.

Good luck Blizzard, you're gonna need it.

I smiled. You know, when you compare zerg and tyranids...

and eldar and protoss...

oh, and terran and space marine...

What I'm trying to say is, Starcraft is a huge rip off of Warhammer 40k in the first place.

With the death of Westwood, Blizzard is pretty much the reigning champ of RTS games. Dunno about a rip off beyond aesthetics, Warhammer 40k is much more intelligent and thought provoking than Starcraft.

You do realize that those sandwiches will last longer then the $7 one?
My guess, so will Starcraft 2. Much longer.

Sounds as if people are whining just because they will actually have to pay for something.
It's a company. It's nothing like the toothfairy. They have to pay their employees.
A game costs to develope and program, not to mention support it's customers.

Blizzard still haven't let me down since the first day of Orcs and Humans.
I really don't think they are about to start now.

Imitation Saccharin :

CantFaketheFunk:

But that doesn't mean they based the choice on it.

The claim is it wasn't even part of the discussion.

CantFaketheFunk:

They can have realized they'll make more money and still have it not a factor in the choice.

Then they are stupid.

Hardly. Here, take this for an example:

I'm buying a new pair of headphones when my old one broke, and I have to choose between two of them. One is more expensive - it doesn't matter how much more - and might have slightly better sound quality/better microphone for gaming. However, I've played with that headset before, and I know that the earphones are uncomfortable and actually hurt my ears after wearing them for about 45 minutes. So, I end up buying the other, more comfortable pair... that HAPPENS to be cheaper.

It doesn't matter how much more expensive the other pair is - $5, $20, $50. Yes, by buying the cheaper pair I am saving money that I can now spend on other things. But that doesn't matter, and it wasn't ever part of the decision. I would have bought the more comfortable pair over the one that makes my ears hurt ANY day, and the fact that I get the cheaper one is just a nice side affect.

So yes, Blizzard can certainly realize that the trilogy will likely be more lucrative (HOW much more lucrative, we have no way of knowing until the pricing is announced), but it was irrelevant. Say they sell all three at $20 apiece - if someone buys all three, they get $60, which is more than they'd have made with a single $50 dollar game. But whether the extra revenue is $10 more, $15 more, $30 more, whatever... the point was not to profit, but to make a better game.

They'd be doing the trilogy whether they made a huge net gain, a small net gain, or broke even, because it'll make it closer to what they actually want to do.

CantFaketheFunk:

Er, honestly it's just something I know having followed their games closely over the years.

Wikipedia disagrees with your claim on Starcraft Ghost, although the veracity of that source is questionable.

http://www.wowwiki.com/Warcraft_Adventures:_Lord_of_the_Clans

There we go. Warcraft Adventures shows more my point than SC:G anyway, because WCA was practically complete at the time they canned it.

Here's the Blizz press release in response to a petition to bring the game back:

Blizzard Announcement - 22 May 1998
Press Desk: Blizzard Cancels Warcraft Adventures: Lord of the Clans

Blizzard wants to take a minute to respond to the Warcraft Adventures petition that is circulating on the Internet. First, we want to express our gratitude to the Warcraft fans that took the time to organize such an effort. We recognize that the cancellation of Warcraft Adventures has disappointed some of our customers, and we appreciate that they have shared their opinions with us.

Secondly, we want let you know that stopping development was not a decision that was taken lightly. It was a hard call to make, but each of us knows that it was the right choice. The cancellation was not a business or marketing decision or even a statement about the adventure genre. The decision centered around the level of value that we want to give our customers. In essence, it was a case of stepping up and really proving to ourselves and gamers that we will not sell out on the quality of our games.

And finally, we hope that Warcraft fans will consider our track record and trust our judgement on ending the project. The cancellation of Warcraft Adventures does not signal the demise of Azeroth. We have every intention of returning to the Warcraft world because there are still chapters to be told. We will keep you informed as we announce future Warcraft plans.

CantFaketheFunk:

But they recognized that keeping their reputation was worth taking that loss.

Yes, to keep making a profit later that is worth more then the resultantly dampened opinion.

The value goes beyond the financial bottom line here. :P

CantFaketheFunk:

Even after years with the company, he told me, he was still struck by how often *that* was the mandate - the player gets the best experience we can give them - rather than "how can we make the most money?"

I doubt your story, but cannot disprove it except to say I request no more unverified objective statements please.

Oh, my story is very much true - just not naming names to respect my acquaintance's privacy. It all boils down to whether or not you trust what *he* told me - and I see absolutely no reason not to.

"Unverified objective statements"? This is a discussion, and the only thing that'd really fall under that would be the WCA/SC:G claim, that I've now backed up :P Otherwise, I have nothing to gain from lying to you; Blizzard ain't paying me to do anything. They're just a game studio that I respect tremendously, and in speaking with the people who work there, I absolutely believe that it's wholly possible to take them at their word.

I support CantFaketheFunk's view entirely.

"This is just a case of bad PR on Blizzard's part. I'll admit that Blizzard's PR is crappy though.

With today's gaming industry moving towards difficult and nearly impossible deadlines and development cycles, we customers should expect to see a lot more of this. Larger game projects will less likely be released as one complete game, but as separate installments.

Now I have no doubt in my mind that each of the 3 campaigns will be much longer and much more interesting then those found in StarCraft 1. If that means purchasing each subsequent campaign as an expansion pack, then so be it."

Quoting myself from the Gamespy comments section about the subject.

CantFaketheFunk:

So, I end up buying the other, more comfortable pair... that HAPPENS to be cheaper.

Because you don't have a mandate to make money.
A company does.

Hence they are stupid or lying.

CantFaketheFunk:

"Unverified objective statements"? This is a discussion, and the only thing that'd really fall under that would be the...

So would "I have a friend who supports my claim X"

CantFaketheFunk:

WCA/SC:G claim

I will accept this claim has been verified.

CantFaketheFunk:

Otherwise, I have nothing to gain from lying to you; Blizzard ain't paying me to do anything.

I cannot verify this.

Paul Sams:
There was never, ever a conversation where we said 'let's do this because we're going to make more money'

I'm sure they didn't. They want to make quality games. They had too much content they wanted to fit into one game and were thinking of how to adress that. Then Vivendi gave them a deadline and they came up with this.
Despite intent, it still is milking the game, imo.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.