By Jim Rossignol on October 11th, 2008 at 8:38 am.
Another transmission from Shacknews at Blizzcon reveals that the three races of Starcraft 2 are going to get a game each, with each game effectively being a Starcraft 2 expandalone. That’s right: the three-campaign game we were expecting is now three distinct games.
Each campaign will be very different, with [Blizzard bossman] Pardo announcing the Zerg campaign will contain RPG elements. The Protoss campaign will likewise be differentiated by elements of diplomacy. In addition, the Terran campaign will feature a Protoss mini-campaign.
Apparently each of the campaigns has enough content to justify a full, separate release. Apparently. Hmm. Two new bits of footage after the jump.
11/10/2008 at 09:13 Meat Circus says:
Milk Korea till it bleeds! Good thinking, evil capitalists.
Me, I’m not paying £100 to play Starcraft 2. Thanks.
11/10/2008 at 09:17 Konky Dong 31: Wrath of the Zombie Fonz says:
This plus the news that Diablo III will have micro-transactions (or “monetizing features” as they put it) and won’t be supporting mods makes me worried. All of this sounds like Activisions tomfoolery to me, I wouldn’t expect this sort of crap from Blizzard. I’ll still probably fork over whatever I have to too play these games, but I really wish Blizzard wasn’t milking them so much.
11/10/2008 at 09:19 Seniath says:
Angry Internet Men – Weapons free, fire at will.
11/10/2008 at 09:20 SwiftRanger says:
Should have been expected, those cinematics alone must cost them loads of money (WoW cash cow or not, I think even Blizzard doesn’t want to throw money away). A pity though that this will rule out a new fourth race in those expansions.
11/10/2008 at 09:34 Azhrarn says:
ah well, obvious money grabbing scheme is obvious. :(
Paying €150 (approx. $225) to get the complete single-player game is far to much for me, even if they price them at “expandalone” level it’ll still be €120 at the very least. So no thanks, i’ll get them from the bargain bin then.
Hadn’t read the monitizing of D3 yet, but that makes it all clear, Activision is abusing the trusted Blizzard brands to create more cash-cows for itself.
(as if an income of roughly $100 million a month from WoW alone isn’t enough)
11/10/2008 at 09:35 Seniath says:
Have they actually announced the pricing anywhere?
11/10/2008 at 09:36 Meat Circus says:
One of these days, Game Videos will get a video player that actually works more than 6% of the time.
11/10/2008 at 09:37 Meat Circus says:
@Seniath:
No, but Mr Rossignol said they would be ‘full’ releases, which to me implies full-price.
11/10/2008 at 09:38 Chris says:
I’ll probably end up buying all three since SC is one of my favourite games ever. I guess I’m disappointed that I’ll probably have to wait two years extra to get the Protoss campaign but simultaneously I’m excited for what this all means for the scope of the thing.
I don’t want any extra races. 3 is plenty. Instead of diluting them by introducing more Blizzard should concentrate on making each totally different and I think this approach will aid that. Especially in the single player campaigns. I would guess that you’ll also get Brood War style new units introduced for the races with each expansion/new game as well so that should help refresh the multiplayer every year or so as well.
11/10/2008 at 09:51 Urael says:
I wonder if the first game will be released a full price, with the following campaigns available at a lower price, much like with Half-Life 2 and episodes 1 & 2? I’d like to think they won’t be looking to charge fulll price for each segment, considering they’d be duplicating the multiplayer component available in the first release. But then again my cynicism towards Big Gaming and it’s money-hungry tactics seems to know no bounds these days…
11/10/2008 at 09:56 Azhrarn says:
Urael, I think it’ll be safer to count on full price for each of the 3. That way it will atleast seem a little better, but it’s still a ripoff.
Games should ship feature complete, and Blizzard used to be a developer that always stood for that. It is obvious to me that they no longer do, and are content to ship a game that’s one-third finished and ask full price for it. And repeat the insult 3 times for good measure.
11/10/2008 at 10:06 Thomas Larsen says:
Really? This is the first news i hear about microtransactions, other than the fact they’ve said in the past they do not want to do it.
Regarding mods, mods were never actually supported, that it was possible with Diablo 2 doesn’t mean it’s supported, and if it is possible with Diablo 3 it doesn’t mean it’s supported either.
Modding will probably be possible to some extent, but from what i understood the world is harder to mess with because of the new technology.
Regarding splitting up the campaigns, i’m disappointed, but not surprised, and i doubt i will mind given Blizzard’s record of quality.
I can understand that they want to keep their high quality, and rather get the Terran campaign done, so they can ship both a good campaign as well as a good online component.
If not, they’d probably have to cut corners, making the campaigns very bland and boring after the Terran one, or the game would probably not even make it for 2009.
Infact i want this game yesterday :(
11/10/2008 at 10:09 Heliocentric says:
Azhram… Why should they bundle 3 campaigns together when they can sell one at a time? Why make less money, too many raving fans who’ll buy anything. You have a bloody nation of fans for one.
The multi player will be complete in the first game, so really that’s all I need. To be honest this model isn’t a hundred miles from the company of heroes model. I’ll need a demo however, everything I’ve seen about how you actually PLAY the game has put me off. Click button powers rather than unit features, for example.
In company of heroes, you put a unit in cover its tougher, its got a panzershrek and it messes up light vehicles, and if you get it behind a heavy tank it can do heavy damage.
In Starcraft 2, I use my anti tank unit on a tank, and it either wins, or I need to use my “anti tank ability” to ensure victory. Or, even more terribly, I use a mobile unit and micro my self around that tank till it dies.
Eh, for this one? Demo or no buy I think.
11/10/2008 at 10:23 Mark-P says:
Like the DoW2 video, these demonstrate some rather overfamiliar and uninspired gameplay. I have CnC3 on my shelf right now for this sort of thing – what’s the selling point for SC2?
Starcraft 1 seems so old and primitive now, and Company of Heroes still feels fresh and fun and well designed, so DoW2 is ahead on points for having a better source for its derivation.
Just what *is* Blizzard doing with all their money anyway? o_O
11/10/2008 at 10:24 SteveTheBlack says:
I was already on the fence, but this announcement has killed any interest I had in this game. I’ll just sit it out until the eventual budget pack release of all three, then I might be tempted to give it a shot.
I’m not paying premium price for three separate releases that, as far as I’m concerned, should probably have all been in one product. Of course, there’s always the possibility that I’m wrong and that they actually are significant stand-alone products in and of themselves, there’s a first time for everything, right?
11/10/2008 at 10:24 Taxman says:
Each Starcraft game will have around 30 single player missions so its not light on those.
http://www.videogaming247.com/2008/10/11/starcraft-ii-is-a-trilogy-blizzard-announces/
To those complaining this is Activisions hand I don’t think it is at all, for one ATV doesn’t care what Blizzard does as long as the golden goose of WoW keeps on giving. To me Blizzard it taking an opportunity to experiment and give fans something more as its not like any Starcraft fan isn’t going to buy all the games after waiting ten years.
The idea with different takes on each game sounds pretty cool to me.
11/10/2008 at 10:28 Wurzel says:
Hmm, it’s certainly an interesting decision. What it says to me is that Blizzard are trying to make the single-player something truly special. If the Terran campaign is a full game’s worth of campaign I’d be happy – after all, Dawn of War only had a Space Marine campaign and that was great. If you don’t buy the others, I presume you’ll just be missing out on the story and some new units.
Always liked Startcraft’s story, but to many this will look like an invitation to piracy – they’ve paid for the main body of the game, and probably won’t want to again.
11/10/2008 at 10:40 StalinsGhost says:
:/ If they expect me to pay £25-35 for each installment, they’ve got another thing coming. If it’s cheaper, then I suppose it might be already, but as it is, I can’t help but feel we’re being ripped off.
11/10/2008 at 10:41 Rei Onryou says:
The super secret fourth race is only available if you buy all 3 campaigns, sell your soul, give them a blood donation every month and donate your organs to Actard.
I wonder if they’ll include a secret cash-cow level…
11/10/2008 at 10:49 The Hammer says:
Man, I’m surprised by this change. SC2 isn’t a game I’m looking forward to much, but if there are three separate games to buy to get the full experience… um…
11/10/2008 at 10:52 rei says:
I doubt Activision has anything to with this. It seems like the sort of thing that would be decided very early on in the development cycle; they haven’t been sleeping together for that long.
I suppose this thing might not be a money-grubbing scheme, and simply an attempt to do something epic with the franchise–who knows. I do know that when people get a taste of big money, though, anything less just won’t do anymore :p There isn’t a shadow of a doubt that WoW hasn’t changed the company.
11/10/2008 at 11:00 Jetsetlemming says:
I’m reminded of Pokemon.
How will multiplayer work? I can only imagine all three come with a fourth multiplayer game with all three races within.
Imagine if they made you buy a game to use that individual race, though. MAN!
11/10/2008 at 11:01 RichPowers says:
I’m not that surprised by this announcement. Several months ago, Blizz said that the Zerg and Protoss campaigns would be totally different from the Terran campaign. Also keep in mind that the Terran campaign is the only one they’ve discussed in any detail (Jim roaming around the battlecruiser, taking missions, buying units, etc.)
Anyway, I’ll probably wait six years and just buy the inevitable battle chest :)
And microtransactions in Diablo III? Inconceivable (I hope).
11/10/2008 at 11:02 Cunningbeef says:
Was about to post the exact same points that rei made.
Blizzard totally peaked with Blackthorne. There, I said it.
11/10/2008 at 11:12 brog says:
Unless the latter two are at a significantly reduced price, I’ll be pirating them. I may subsequently purchase them if I find that there is so much content in them that it is actually worth the money. Games are overpriced already, which is why I usually only buy indie games, but Starcraft has a special place in my heart.
11/10/2008 at 11:17 The Apologist says:
@brog
Blizzard releases a product which you judge might not be value for money, and that justifies you pirating them?
Seriously weird. Where do you get your sense of entitlement from.
If you don’t want the thing at the price it is being sold at, don’t buy it.
11/10/2008 at 11:24 brog says:
@The Apologist:
Given that there’s an option to try before I buy and see if it really is value for money, why wouldn’t I take it?
Also, I come from a country where games cost about three times as much as in the American land, so we’re talking a lot of money here. And I’ll probably be too impatient to wait for it to end up in bargain bins.
11/10/2008 at 11:31 Azhrarn says:
@heliocentric:
I can certainly understand Blizzard wanting to make more money, but considering they can fund everything they ever dreamt off for years to come with WoWs monthly revenue of $100 million plus, I question their motivation to split this game up. If all 3 campaigns are each good enough quality and have the best storylines ever realised in RTS then I might consider buying them, but even then they had better not be the usual €50-€55 we’re expected to pay these days. I only shell out that kind of money for complete games, not one-third of a game. I couldn’t care less for the multiplayer since I’m far to slow for SCs insane gameplay speeds.
11/10/2008 at 11:31 pkt-zer0 says:
Releasing the main game in 2009, with two expansions in the following two years doesn’t seem much more money-grubbing than what they’ve already been doing.
11/10/2008 at 11:32 The Apologist says:
@brog
I agree to the extent that companies should make the effort to give people the chance to try before they buy on an open platform like the PC etc. but I have never understood why, where that is not offered, that justifies going down an illegal route to taking it.
As you point out, for those not prepared to pay the initial asking price, there will be a cheaper option down the line. Surely it is better to wait and pay less later, than take something you have no right to?
And I do appreciate the cost of this stuff – I am from the UK. Games are expensive.
For me, I have no right to play it if I am not prepared to pay what they ask. So if I can’t afford it, or I just don’t think it is worth the money, then I can’t have it. Plain and simple.
11/10/2008 at 11:41 Gap Gen says:
It’s interesting, because playing it safe and just making a straight sequel would have netted them a lot of cash as it is. Maybe the multiplayer comes full with all of them, so the Koreans don’t care?
11/10/2008 at 11:47 Konky Dong 31: Wrath of the Zombie Fonz says:
@Azhrarn & Others:
I pulled the D3 “micro-transactions” quote from here:
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/55271
“However, the developer did note that Blizzard will likely monetize unknown features of the game.
“We are going to monetize features so that we get to make them,” said Wilson. “We kind of have to.”
Wilson noted that whatever the content would be, it would have an appropriate value to users. “
11/10/2008 at 11:49 brog says:
@The Apologist:
Fair enough. For me, I see no practical difference between playing it now and buying it later when it’s more affordable, or just playing it then. I do the same with TV shows – download as they come out and then buy the dvd box set later. Usually with games I do wait until they’re cheaper to buy (which is when I have hardware that can run them anyway) but sometimes I’m impatient.
11/10/2008 at 11:49 Heliocentric says:
Wow funding other projects is bad business. Everything must turn the maximum profit without endangering future profits. But i need to throw a spear in the bull. These 3 games could be incredible single player campaigns, or shit. Distressing about your sense of entitlement being disturbed makes no sense. The games will cost what they cost and if you think thats too much? Don’t buy them, otherwise you are the reason they charge so much. Hell, if starcraft 2 came out and didn’t break the top 10 you know damn well it’d get reduced.
11/10/2008 at 12:03 subedii says:
I don’t understand all the complaints on this one. We don’t even know the length of the campaigns and the detail going into them, nor do we know the pricing structure. Assuming the singleplayer is of similar length, or possibly that the pricing reflects the length and quality of the three products, I can’t say I have a problem with this one. Blizzard haven’t exactly been known to be stingy with content thus far, so I’d be willing to wait and see.
There were similar complaints about Half-Life 2′s Episodes. Oh Wow, great money grubbing move Valve, you’re just MILKING people for more money and not bothering to deliver a whole game.
There’s something to be said for incremental development cycles, not just for the players, who’ll be getting more content at shorter intervals, but also for companies, who now actually have the opportunity to take on feedback and apply it to later units in the series.
With what little information we’ve been given so far, I don’t see the problem.
11/10/2008 at 12:04 Steve says:
Did you ever play WoW? They charge a monthly subscription, bring out almost no content patches and then expect you to fork out 20 quid for an expansion when it hits. Not to mention charging you real money for a server transfer and name change.
Yeah, Blizzard are just moneyhungry. It has nothing to do with Activision – they’re exactly the same. Milk, milk, milk.
Next up: Diablo 3 will come with 1 class per box. You read it here first, folks.
11/10/2008 at 12:09 Sucram says:
I think multiplayer is the same with all of them. I can see quite a lot of people buying the first one then pirating the other two.
11/10/2008 at 12:15 Alteisentier says:
I really don’t see why everyone is flailing and carrying on over this. Or even blaming them for milking for money. It’s a game and two expansion packs, no one gets upset and flails when they released an expansion pack for Warcraft 3, or Warcraft 2, or starcraft, or any other game that has an expansion.
What about dawn of war? didn’t they pull off a worse stunt than this? At least Blizzard is going to give you the most for your money. A full 30ish mission storyline with full multiplayer, (Lol buying expansions for one extra race online in DoW) from what it seems they have gone quite all out, giving each mission a 3D rendered interactive little text adventure briefing thingy, and even ones to end mission the mission and show you what happens afterwards of just a huge glowing “YOU WINRAR THE MISSION” text you get from any other RTS
I don’t know, I think it will work quite well instead of splitting the game into three brief and short campaigns and then having to release more expansion packs just to tie them all up. The two expansions are going to be diffrently themed as well, the Zerg one follows a more RPG style and apparently the Protoss are going all diplomatic (Civ style between planets?) So as long as they arn’t going to charge 60 euro for each one, which I doubt they would. There just oesn’t seem to be much reason to complain over them taking time and doing a more episodic style release to make the story better.
11/10/2008 at 12:15 brog says:
>There were similar complaints about Half-Life 2’s Episodes.
>Oh Wow, great money grubbing move Valve, you’re just
>MILKING people for more money and not bothering to
>deliver a whole game.
If they’re priced as episodes I’m happy. Just there was talk that they’d be full price, which probably half the internet would interpret as “pirate me plz”. It would take a lot to convince me that each single campaign is worth a hundred dollars (it’s not impossible; if it turns out to be incredible I’ll happily pay), and I know plenty of people who won’t be convinced under any circumstances.
11/10/2008 at 12:16 TheDeadlyShoe says:
I don’t mind the core game having just one campaign so long as its a high quality lengthy campaign. But I better not be paying full price for expansions that are just singleplayer content. 90 missions in the same engine with the same units simply isn’t worth $150.
11/10/2008 at 12:24 TheDeadlyShoe says:
All of Dawn of War’s expansions added one or two complete races as well as units to existing races. Dark Crusade retailed for $30.
Half Life 2 Episodes 1-2 came with entire other games as well as engine updates and new gameplay mechanics. I forget their retail, though
If $30 thats the kind of price we’re looking at for just singleplayer content, that’s high but maybe-acceptable. But I’m certainly not paying full AAA game price and that’s what ‘splitting it into 3 games’ implies.
@Brog: In my experience, ‘try before you buy’ usually means ‘find some criticism to justify never buying after playing through the game completely’. :p
11/10/2008 at 12:38 Tei says:
I was interested, but 150€ for a 2002 game is too much. I already have Company of Heroes and Supreme Commander, that are 2008 games.
11/10/2008 at 12:40 brog says:
@TheDeadlyShoe: Well, sometimes you do play through a game completely and are left feeling empty and disappointed. I will certainly be buying SC2 itself as soon as it comes out, because Blizzard have a good track record (despite the abomination that is WoW), but if the separate campaigns are full price.. probably not.
11/10/2008 at 12:51 The Apologist says:
@brog
Still don’t think there is an excuse for pirating, but I can understand being impatient for SC2!!
Really looking forward to this, and I hope the model of HL2 episodes or Dawn of War is what they look to.
11/10/2008 at 13:08 Tom says:
Wait!
RPG-elements????
Oh-loordy….
11/10/2008 at 13:08 James says:
NERDRAGE INCOMING!!! HIDE!
11/10/2008 at 13:14 garren says:
RRRRRRRAAAAAGE!!!
My work here is done.
11/10/2008 at 13:23 A-Scale says:
How could Blizzard do this! How dare they offer us MORE content broken up into intervals rather than make us wait for 3 years for a single game which would by then be far outdated, or give us an unfinished game! This is an outrage. You know where I live in Pompousistan AMERICAN games cost over 700 billion dollars. EACH. And they dare charge us for THREE separate games?! Somebody call the air force. Somebody call the navy. Somebody call Jack Thompson!
11/10/2008 at 13:35 c-Row says:
Somebody just STFU! If after ten years they still don’t manage to deliver the whole experience in one game… jeez! Not even Valve are taking this long.
11/10/2008 at 13:40 Steelfist says:
STOP USING FUCKING GAME VIDEOS!!!
Please.
11/10/2008 at 13:42 James says:
Maybe I should try this strategy of constant teasing with my girlfriend: Hey babe, you know, in two years, you will get multiple ***** and I will ***** like a beast so ******. But till then I just show you my ***** so you can ***** ** **** *****.
11/10/2008 at 13:48 Lim-Dul says:
How do you know it’s more content? 0_o
From a gameplay perspective SC2 sadly looks outdated to me already. ;-)
All in all – unsuccessful troll is unsuccessful.
11/10/2008 at 13:52 cyrenic says:
$1 billion in revenue a year will change a company. This and the laughable D3 quote “We are going to monetize features so that we get to make them,” said Wilson. “We kind of have to.” show Blizzard is a different company now.
And if you think you can buy the first SC2 release and just play the multiplayer and be fine, you better get your fill quickly, because the videogaming 24/7 story mentions “multiplayer upgrades” with each expansion.
11/10/2008 at 14:03 Indian says:
Biggest wtf of the year. Has Blizzard gone money mad from WoW?
11/10/2008 at 14:05 drewski says:
What’s this “different company” bollocks? Blizzard have always been cash hunters, nothing’s changed. You can still pay A grade price for the Diablo II battlechest if you’re not paying attention!
They get away with it because lots of people like their games. Oh noes! Company with popular, high demand product tries to maximise revenue! It’s the end of the world as we know it!
11/10/2008 at 14:28 cyrenic says:
@drewski
Yes, they still sell the Diablo II battlechest for $30 because there’s still demand for it. But it’s Diablo II and an expansion in the chest, not Diablo II: Baal, Diablo II: Mephisto, Diablo II: Diablo. That’s what has changed :P.
11/10/2008 at 14:57 drewski says:
Yes, they’ve found a new way to make their rabidly dedicated fans pay through the nose for content. I’m saying that their attitude hasn’t changed, just their methods – some of the fanbois in here seem to think that Blizzard used to be the Fairy Godmothers of Gaming, distributing gorgeous trinkets of gaming goodness for free to the little children running amok at their feet.
Same company, same attitude, different method. They do it because people will pay. Don’t like it? Don’t play Blizzard games.
11/10/2008 at 15:03 edosan says:
I’ll wait for the inevitable Starcraft 2 Battle Chest, thank you.
11/10/2008 at 15:06 Mike says:
I heard that three games makes more money than one game. That’s what I heard.
11/10/2008 at 15:17 Bob says:
Blizzzard, Goin for the Threpeat on one game, bad form…
Seriously, this is one good way to alienate fanbase whilr at the same time finding out how many die hards there are. I suppose that it also going to let them see how many will come back after their battlechest of the set hits the bargain racks so they can get a slice of humble pie about pricing too.
11/10/2008 at 15:20 Kommissar Nicko says:
I’m looking forward the Protoss one:
STATECRAFT: LIFE ON AIUR.
I always imagined hearing a debate between Senator Dark Templar and Governor Archon.
11/10/2008 at 15:29 Optimaximal says:
In all fairness, Vivendi were the ones farming out Blizzard stuff for consistently high prices because of its cash-cow nature.
11/10/2008 at 15:44 Mil says:
Nothing is yet known about whether they will release one of these campaigns this year, right?
11/10/2008 at 16:13 Pags says:
tactics for surviving the credit crunch:
1. bleed korea dry
11/10/2008 at 16:29 sinister agent says:
Hm. Interesting. I wonder if they’re banking on catching all the sort of sub-genre fans. As in, some people may have liked the hero aspects of starcraft (or even warcraft 3, though I found the “heroes” in that to be a tedious micro-clicking chore, and it didn’t help that the main one was an annoying ponce), while others aren’t bothered, and were more interested in the story.
I’m not going to pay for three full games (read: wait until they’re all released in a bundle for a reasonable price, kids. Seriously, stop fucking buying games the minute they’re out, damn it, you’re your own worst enemies), but I would prefer that they spend the time getting a huuuge collection done well than rush out a stripped down version.
Not saying I’m happy about the idea, to be honest, not least because playing exclusively as one species for a whole game could conceivably become rather tiresome (and it seems they’re opening with the terrans, who are the most boring and conventional, like them or not). And “RPG element” invariably means “vital characters are useless for 90% of the game”. But! Let’s wait and see, shall we? The footage so far remains promising, and their taking time over it is most likely to result in better quality.
11/10/2008 at 16:29 basilosaurus says:
Doesn’t bother me much, I only play skirmish. It makes me sad they broke it up like that though: there’s a strong divide between people who like multi and people who like campaign modes, but I don’t think many people who play the zerg campaign will not want the protoss. If they sold multiplayer and campaign discs as different games that would be a much fairer way to portion it out and it would still give them plenty of scope for long, detailed campaigns. Of course, being fair is not maximising profits.
11/10/2008 at 16:31 Zyrusticae says:
So… what’s with all the outrage again?
If the campaigns turn out to be less-than-full-game-size, sure, there’s plenty of reason for bitching to be had all-around. But it doesn’t sound like it, and it seems to me that each campaign really is going to be a separate, contained game in and of itself.
This also doesn’t affect the multiplayer component at all (single-player campaigns will have units that are not available in multiplayer games), which is kind of odd…
That said, until we know the full breadth of the included content and the pricing scheme they’re going to use, any bitching about Blizzard milking the hell out of their customers seems rather… presumptious. We only know they’re going to release three products, and that they’re (supposedly) going to have enough content to justify being three different games. That’s it. Calm down, folks.
11/10/2008 at 16:49 Nick says:
Don’t they have enough money? Why is it people with so much money they have nothing to spend it on are often ruthless in aquiring yet more money. Is it addictive? Of course, I’d love to know first hand, but I miss the days of quality product being responsible for making you rich, rather than ripping the customer off.
11/10/2008 at 17:00 Johnny Law says:
What the hell, Internet? Until more is known about the extent and price of these games, all the wounded self-righteous rage at this announcement is… well, OK, it’s expected, but still sad.
So there are going to be three Starcraft games coming over the next few years. How terrible?
11/10/2008 at 17:13 sinister agent says:
So anyway, is that a working title or what? There are few weaker words than “terran”, and “wings of liberty” sounds halfway between embarassingly HOO-rah and amusingly like a new gimmick in panty liners.
11/10/2008 at 17:57 Fazer says:
From http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/55267 :
“”[The second and third games] will be like expansion packs, but we really want them to feel like standalone products,” said Blizzard’s Rob Pardo.
(…)
The campaigns are planned as concentrated, epic storylines, with enough content to justify a full release. As a result, the games will now feature more in-game cinematics and story content.
Blizzard added that the plans for the multiplayer component are unchanged by the splitting of the campaigns. However, some units will now be unique to the campaigns and will not be playable in multiplayer.”
11/10/2008 at 19:04 Heinrad says:
Right, so I’ve had a preorder for SC2 for a while now. What is that going to buy me? At what intervals are these expansions coming out in? What pricepoint are they going to retail at? Will the later ‘games’ (which tell the same story) bring anything new to the table? If not, how can you justify the triple release? I’m a fan of the Zerg, so is there no point in me buying the Terran game? If a standard RTS single player slowly introduces you to the whole techtree over the first few missions, is that viable over a staggered release?
So many questions Blizzard, so many questions.
11/10/2008 at 19:17 malkav11 says:
A) I don’t want to just be able to play one race at a time (no, skirmish and multiplayer don’t count. I’ve never enjoyed either.).
B) If as they claim the alternatives were to push the game back further or cut content, I would happily have picked “push the game back further”. I don’t care when the game comes out as long as it’s good when it does. (I have *plenty* of other things to play.) I do care if it’s only a third of the experience. And obviously I’d much rather spend $50-80 (the latter for a CE) than $150+ if they wind up being priced as full games. Or even $90 if they all hit the $30 expansion price point.
11/10/2008 at 19:33 Jochen Scheisse says:
I don’t know whether someone besides me commented on this in the thread, but I’m pretty sure all 3 races are in the first version of the game, because whatever the first race they release is, it can hardly fight itself all the time =/
And if they put em in, it’s probable that they will be playable. I would suppose they go for the extra units and extra campaign approach pretty much everyone uses.
11/10/2008 at 19:49 Zyrusticae says:
I keep reading this “a third of the experience” thing, and it just strikes me as rather like a child going ‘gimme-gimme!’. I mean, a third of the experience, in this case, is already the same as one full game. The ‘full experience’ would be three times what you usually get with these sort of games, and that’s just not necessary.
Also, to anyone who’d force all of us who actually like the multiplayer component to wait for several more years for their sake… that’s just not very nice, is it?
11/10/2008 at 19:51 Y3k-Bug says:
Time really has nothing to do with this at all, and Blizzards claim otherwise seems rather disingenuous: the original game came out A DECADE AGO. I don’t think Starcraft’s audience would mind waiting another 2 years if that’s how long the delay would have taken. And how do you delay a game that has no release date set to begin with?
11/10/2008 at 19:53 A-Scale says:
Try reading an article or two. Each game will have an equal number of missions as the original starcraft had total. That means its a FULL game of Protoss, a FULL game of Terran, and a FULL game of Zerg missions.
Troll? My ass. This thread is just full of whiners. If you don’t want to buy the campaign, don’t buy it. You’ll still get the multiplayer with each iteration of the game. No need to cry your eyes out.
11/10/2008 at 20:03 Tei says:
Another problem is boredoom. This convert SC2 in a RTS game with a single campaing, a single race. Theres one reason why all RTS games have more than one race, is beause a single race get old fast. I fear thet SC2 singleplayers will be terrible boring. I have to say that Terrans is my less favorite race from all. Generic supersoldiers? Gaaaah.
11/10/2008 at 20:04 Y3k-Bug says:
@Zyrusticae:
Let me explain the way I see it, and you can let me know what you think.
HL2 and its episodes are used as examples frequently throughout this post, so I’ll go with that.
HL2 is released. It features maps, a base set of weaponry, a set of play mechanics and features, etc etc etc.
So the episodes are released. So far episodes 1 and 2 may feature new gameplay mechanics, weapons, and enemies but the entirety of the HL2 experience is contained within each episode. What made HL2, HL2 is there. The only thing incomplete is the storyline.
In Starcraft’s case, the game was released with 3 races in single play & multiplay, a specific set of play mechanics, etc etc etc.
Yet for SC 2, you aren’t getting the entirety of the SC experience within each episodic pack. The first retail release of SC 2 will be missing parts that were included in the first game. There are parts of the experience of SC that are not being included, and worse yet they aren’t being included because Blizzard wants more money.
Its not a matter of “gimme gimme gimme!”, its about SC2 not including things that SC1 did. Like the other 2 races.
For what its worth by the way, I have no intention of buying into this. When Blizzard does a SC2 Battle chest with all of the content for under $80 US, I’ll pick it up. But I really don’t like the precedent this sets.
11/10/2008 at 20:41 pkt-zer0 says:
Going from “it’ll likely come out in 2009″ to “it’ll likely come out in 2012″, that’s how.
Some would argue the single-player campaign is not a very significant part of a competitive RTS like SC. And it’s the people more interested in the single-player campaign that this move is catering to, anyway: you’ll get more fleshed out campaigns with more cinematics. Sure, you won’t get all of them right now, but what you will get eventually will be of higher quality.
If it’s a “ten single-player maps played with the same race” you’re looking for, there’s the editor for that. Also, you could always just pretend that SC2 isn’t out until the Battlechest is released.
11/10/2008 at 20:49 Zyrusticae says:
Parts of it not being included because Blizzard wants more money?
For crying out loud, it’s a FULL CAMPAIGN that’s as big as the ENTIRE Starcraft campaign for EACH individual race! It has nothing to do with money and everything to do with their (possibly overreaching) ambition to create an insanely epic campaign!
And they’re still including the other two races, you’re just fighting against them for a longer period of time. It really shouldn’t matter, anyways. People playing through Gears of War don’t care that they’re playing through the game with a single character, often with the exact same weapons, are they? If the game gets ‘boring’ just because you’re getting very familiar with a single race, then obviously they failed at making the game good enough. But I detest the idea that you MUST switch races every X missions or the game WILL get boring just because you want the mechanics to change THAT much every so often. (I find that especially funny considering games like Supreme Commander, where all the sides have identical mechanics, and here we have a game with three separate sides, all with unique mechanics…)
11/10/2008 at 20:49 Y3k-Bug says:
11/10/2008 at 20:50 Y3k-Bug says:
Boy I really miss the editing function. Could we at least get a Preview button? Just lost a big response to Zero with poor formatting on my part =-/
11/10/2008 at 20:51 Zyrusticae says:
History has told us that Blizzard games have a strong tendency to release 2 years after the time of announcement. Many people consider that a good time to expect a release. If they miss the date because they decided to finish all three campaigns first, people will notice. Trust…
11/10/2008 at 20:54 malkav11 says:
Some would argue that the singleplayer campaign isn’t a big part of Starcraft. Some would be drastically wrong.
11/10/2008 at 21:01 Y3k-Bug says:
Of course its about money though. They even hinted at microtransactions for Diablo 3 yesterday:
Diablo III director Jay Wilson said today that the company does not have a great desire to charge a subscription fee for the upcoming revision of its multiplayer client Battle.net. However, the developer did note that Blizzard will likely monetize unknown features of the game. “We are going to monetize features so that we get to make them,” said Wilson. “We kind of have to.” Wilson noted that whatever the content would be, it would have an appropriate value to users.
There’s nothing wrong with this all being about money. Blizzard is a business. But lets not pretend that the splitting up of SC2 is some altruistic deal. This is about Blizzard maximizing profits off one of the biggest games of all time.
I’m trying to understand the point you’re making about GoW, but I can’t make the connection. Could you elaborate on that further?
11/10/2008 at 21:11 RichPowers says:
I find expansion packs and microtransactions incredibly annoying. I’m glad I waited until The Orange Box to finally play the HL2 series and, in general, only buy gold editions, battle chests, and compilations. Fuck ‘em.
11/10/2008 at 21:29 Larington says:
I know game developers have to make a profit, but, I’m finding this decision as hard to swallow as the realisation at the end of Crysis was that the game was being planned as a trilogy all along and I didn’t know (A significant factor in me refusing to by warhead).
This just got added to my wait for budget release/not bother list.
11/10/2008 at 21:31 pkt-zer0 says:
If maximizing profits is achieved through a better game, go right ahead. If it’s the worst case scenario of a single 150$ game chopped into three parts, the blame would still fall on the people who buy into it, not Blizzard. They can only sell it for as much as people are willing to pay for it, after all.
11/10/2008 at 21:33 ru says:
we’ve only heard about the terran campaign because it’s the only one that’s close to finished. (or started?)
that’s why they’re splitting them, to push a street release date of a viable multiplayer sc2.
11/10/2008 at 22:40 Fumarole says:
And here I thought people overreacted to posts about Piracy and/or Fallout.
11/10/2008 at 22:44 Alarik says:
ROFL. Now this is one funny bunch of comments :)
Regarding pricing – I would gladly pay price HL2, Crysis, Tiberiums Wars and Call of Duty 4 all for one Diablo 2 LoD, simply becase it would still be bargain price – since I have played it 10+ times more then all those games together.
Same with Starcraft & BW. So if Starcraft 2 is at least as good as those games (and hopefully we’ll see when the game is finally released), I will have no problems purchasing other possible ‘episodes’.
11/10/2008 at 22:52 Larington says:
Depends on what you’re going to get out of the game, even with the polish I’m expecting in SC2, I only have so much money and time, I’ll no doubt work through as much of the single player campaign as I am able and shelf it. If its released in a packed christmas season, it’ll automatically get downgraded on my buying list because I know I can get a much better deal by waiting for a multi-pack (Though interestingly I didn’t make that choice for HL2 episodes, I’ve bought those as they’ve come out – most likely because the episodes became public knowledge farely soon, whereas I’m now distant enough from starcraft 1 to be able to be very patient with it).
11/10/2008 at 23:20 unclelou says:
I see knee-jerk baseless indignation has found its way to RPS. What a silly thread. :)
12/10/2008 at 00:24 Zyrusticae says:
Let’s not ignore the fact that each campaign is supposed to be a full and self-contained game in and of itself. How is that not a good deal for the players? Are single-player games so devalued that you’d refuse to pay full price for a full game? I mean, cripes, I just don’t get it…
And I mention Gears of War because the ‘I must be able to play through all sides!’ mentality is something unique to RTSes. Shooters never deal with this sort of thing, as players are just fine with going through the game as a single character with a limited selection of weapons. Amusingly, an RTS game like Starcraft gives you a multitude of units and a multitude of ways to use them together, which means they actually have more gameplay variety than almost any shooter.
Is it because the shooters are twitch-based (though Starcraft is easily just as twitch-based as any shooter)? I mean, why is the RTS genre held onto such a higher standard? If a FPS game gets away with telling one side of the story, why wouldn’t an RTS be allowed the same leisure? The only reason I can think of is precedent, as almost every RTS before (save the original Dawn of War, and Homeworld 2, and I’m sure there’s a few more that I’ll fail to mention in my ignorance) has allowed players to play each side. But that shouldn’t be a requirement. Frankly, I think it’s lazy. It’s more difficult to make a compelling story told from the perspective of a single side than it is to tell it from three different, conflicting sides, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.
12/10/2008 at 01:00 Derek K. says:
“Of course, there’s always the possibility that I’m wrong and that they actually are significant stand-alone products in and of themselves, there’s a first time for everything, right?”
Yeah, Blizzard has pretty much released trash up until now. I mean, I don’t even remember their games – some Fightcraft or something? 1, 1x, 2, 2x, 3, 3x, all really sucked.
Then some stupid cash-in on pay for multiplayer or some such.
At least they don’t have some devil games….
12/10/2008 at 01:30 Y3k-Bug says:
I think a bigger overarching problem I have with this is that I’m not quite sold on the concept of episodic content delivery. When it comes to AAA game releases, I haven’t really seen any that have benefited the consumer any; while HL2 has been doing it for a few years, I’m almost positive when you add up the dev time of all 3 episodes, it will add up to the amount of time it took to develop HL1/2. So how is the consumer benefiting?
But after reading through the comments here, I guess it comes down to how much you feel the the content is worth to you. Which is really whats most important. So I’ll accept that many people won’t mind this much, and SC2 will do well. I don’t think I’ll be purchasing it, but I hardly doubt Blizzard is worried about me too much :D
That said, does any get the feeling that this move sets an interesting precedent? I bet a ton of publishers are looking at this with bated breath, as this is more or less a developer trying to do a DLC-like system for the PC.
12/10/2008 at 03:25 drewski says:
Did anyone, anywhere, ever believe that episodic content was actually going to benefit the consumer?
12/10/2008 at 04:54 malkav11 says:
I wouldn’t need to play every side in an RTS campaign if there were only one side playable, period, like in an FPS. But if you’re going to go to the work of providing a fully playable faction with its own nuances and strategies, they need a singleplayer campaign. Nothing in RTSes is more frustrating to me than being forced to play boring, flavorless skirmishes in order to play with half of the cool toys in the game.
12/10/2008 at 05:22 perilisk says:
Eh, I don’t know that I would like a game with a campaign for only one side. I don’t really play MP, and from playing SC recently, I think I would start to get bored of one faction by 1/3 of the game. They’ll going to be rationing out new units much more tightly this time around, I guess.
I don’t know why they didn’t do a smaller campaign for each side, and then release a couple of expansions. It’s their traditional model and it works. It’s also the HL2 model, really. They had shooting, driving, puzzles, all interspersed to keep you from burning out. The episodes also had a good mix of gameplay, and introduced new mechanics. If HL2 was released the way SC2 is supposed to be, the original would be a straight up run and gun FPS, episode 1 would be a portal-like puzzle game, and episode 2 would be a city-17 themed racing game. True, different missions will have somewhat different mechanics, but the really interesting differences are between the factions and their unit mix and resource structure.
12/10/2008 at 11:40 Duoae says:
I’m not interested in buying 3 versions of the game over a prolonged period. The SP in the original was good and all but i was getting bored of each race just as they moved onto the next one – a good gameplay design decision. Having 30 missions of the same gameplay/race seems like a bad design decision because i’m going to be stuck with the same units, same gameplay tactics…. if i bought the game i know i’d be bored – there are only a certain number of gameplay permutations you can have each level for an RTS:
1. Escort
2. Build base from scratch
3. Find and repair base
4. Lone unit or few units moving through an enemy infested map.
5. Fortify and hold position against a horde
Maybe i’m just limited in my imagination but there’s a reason why we haven’t seen different variations on those themes in RTSs since Command and Conquer came out…
12/10/2008 at 12:00 Ian Kiigan says:
Calm down folks, none of you have any idea how substantial the single player campaign will be and whether or not the expansions will be good value for money or not. Reserve your anger until you know some of the details.
Speaking as an actual Starcraft fan – someone who still plays the original game all the time – this is great news. It’s more Starcraft!
12/10/2008 at 20:31 Anthony Damiani says:
Well, this depends on how the multiplayer and skirmish is. This kind of radical move seriously jeopardizes the chances of SC2 enjoying the same success of its predecessor.
13/10/2008 at 07:16 ScornfulPanda says:
Bad move!
I really liked the first SC because the story really drew me in. I really like how you got to play each side to unravel the whole story. 3 games instead of one equals cancelling my preorder and wait for the gold box.
SC2 was also very good but I prefered AoK at the time and nowadays we have been spoiled with the likes of CoH and World in Conflict.
Anyway this one will wait and see and when it comes to it vote with his wallet. ;)
13/10/2008 at 09:15 Cataclysm says:
I don’t agree with this extreme money milking method but I do think it will be interesting to find out sales % of each expandalone.
Which Racial campaign is the most prefered?
As far as this method goes, when is content “too big for one game”? Its silly.
A game doesn’t have boundaries for length!
If thats the case, Halo 2 (though a very good game) took me very little time to complete so wheres my second half of it? And I’m yet to complete Oblivion, so they should break it into 2 sections at the very least. (/sarcasm)
I understand this method with a film, as you have to sit and watch it for its full length, and anything over a certain amount of time and peoples minds shut down, (LOTR Trilogy for example would be silly as 1 film) but not a bloody game! Press SAVE and exit!
Sigh.
13/10/2008 at 09:35 Dreamhacker says:
When companies do these kinds of releases, I immediately think: Oh, they’re short on cash?
But this time it’s Blizzard, probably the richest gamedev in the world. Meaning this is just pure greed.
I, for one, will BOYCOTT all things Bli$$ard.
13/10/2008 at 10:09 Megamaj says:
I wish Gamevideo trailers would work, so I wouldn’t have to leave the RPS page to search for this trailer somewhere else … :/
13/10/2008 at 14:19 Camel says:
Gotta love christian hypocrits from the great and haggard USA! Piracy is bad mmmkay, morale is a set of rules and laws! If I’m a goody two shoes then everyone else ought to be as well! Laws, morales, high values of mine, certainly should be enacted as laws as I for one don’t jaywalk.
I for one hope I never find such a bunch in my local pub.
20/10/2008 at 23:04 JayeRandom says:
Sigh. When I first heard of SC2 I was sure I wanted to play it, but the more I read about, and the more I watch the absolutely uninspiring gameplay videos, the less and less interested I become.
12/11/2008 at 05:28 Silverblade says:
well the thing I want to know when is SC2 gonna come out in Korea.
I really really want to play it but it’s kind of stupid how there’s two more expansions and it’s gonna come out in about two more years, also you can’t really say that the expansions are gonna be something like 50 dollars. I just want to know what happeneds and stuff and try out SC2.(SIGH)