By Alec Meer on May 3rd, 2010 at 11:25 pm.
Goodness, that was quick. Well, by Blizzard standards – I wasn’t expecting this until 2011, to be honest. Hottish on the heels of the ongoing closed beta test, long-in-the-making strategy sequel Starcraft II has finally been accorded an official date on which it will be available in shops: July 27 2010. Ah, shops. Like the internet, but located in annoying places, asking higher prices and carrying the risk of having to physically talk to other human beings. Hopefully Blizzard are planning on a download-only version of the game, given the inherent onlininess of the new Battle.net, but notably they’re not talking about pricing yet. Will Battle.net be free? Will the first chunk of SC2, Wings of Liberty, be as expensive as a standard videogame? Will the game really meet its promised street date of July? Will Batman and Robin be eaten by a giant plant? Tune in beneath the cut – same bat-time, same bat-channel.
Er. By which I mean “the press release is below.”
STARCRAFT® II: WINGS OF LIBERTY™ IN STORES STARTING JULY 27, 2010
IRVINE, Calif. – May 3, 2010 – Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. announced today that its highly anticipated real-time strategy game, StarCraft® II: Wings of Liberty™, will arrive in stores throughout the United States, Canada, Europe, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, Mexico, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, and the regions of Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau starting on July 27, 2010. Players will also be able to purchase StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty directly from Blizzard Entertainment shortly after the retail launch.
“We’ve been looking forward to revisiting the StarCraft universe for many years, and we’re excited that the time for that is almost here,” said Mike Morhaime, CEO and cofounder of Blizzard Entertainment. “Thanks to our beta testers, we’re making great progress on the final stages of development, and we’ll be ready to welcome players all over the world to StarCraft II and the new Battle.net® in just a few months.”
StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty is the sequel to Blizzard Entertainment’s 1998 hit StarCraft, which has been hailed by players and critics worldwide as one of the top real-time strategy games of all time. Sporting a vibrant 3D-graphics engine, StarCraft II will once again center on the clash between the protoss, terrans, and zerg, with each side deploying legions of veteran, upgraded, and new unit types. Unparalleled online play for StarCraft II will be available through a new version of Battle.net, Blizzard Entertainment’s world-renowned gaming service. Battle.net has been redesigned from the ground up to be the premier online gaming destination for Blizzard gamers, with several enhancements and new features, such as voice communication, cloud file storage, leagues and ladders, achievements, stat-tracking, and more.
The solo campaign for StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty will continue the epic saga where it left off in StarCraft: Brood War®. The story line chronicles the exploits of marshal-turned-rebel-leader Jim Raynor and features both familiar faces and new heroes. Players will be able to tailor the experience, choosing their own mission path and selecting technology and research upgrades to suit their playing style throughout the 29-mission campaign. Several challenge-mode mini-games will also be included, with focused goals designed to ease players into the basics of multiplayer strategies.
For more information on StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty, visit the official website at www.starcraft2.com. Further details about the game, including the alternative pricing options previously mentioned for certain regions, will be announced in the coming weeks. With multiple games in development, Blizzard Entertainment has numerous positions currently available — visit www.blizzard.com/jobs for more information and to learn how to apply.
03/05/2010 at 23:26 geldonyetich says:
And it will sell 50 million copies, and the streets will run red with Zerg rushes.
04/05/2010 at 06:11 CPY says:
You are wrong! We must construct aditional pylons!
04/05/2010 at 09:50 Daniel Klein says:
Spawn more overlords.
04/05/2010 at 10:29 Tagert says:
Build more supply depots!
04/05/2010 at 12:32 Sarlix says:
Build more sentries!
Oh sorry wrong game…
04/05/2010 at 15:43 PleasingFungus says:
Need a dispenser here?
04/05/2010 at 17:27 Sarlix says:
Spy’s sappin’ mah Zergling! :D
03/05/2010 at 23:31 Rich says:
“Will the first chunk of SC2, Wings of Liberty, be as expensive as a standard videogame?”
I think they’ve already suggested it would be. The idea being that the first of the single-player chapters is long enough that when accompanied with the multi-player, skirmish and editor features, is sufficient to warrant a full price. Don’t know if we’ll be agreeing with them on that though.
03/05/2010 at 23:34 Vinraith says:
I’d be buying it for the campaign, single player skirmish, co-op against AI, and mods, so I don’t have anything close to the information I need to determine my level of interest right now.
04/05/2010 at 00:27 Psychopomp says:
The campaign is contains 29 missions, and is something like a mix of Starcraft 1+DoW2. In addition to that, there’s a mini-protoss campaign, and some challenge levels. I don’t know how good AI will be out of the box, but there’s already some *very* good custom AI scripts floating around. With the editor having only been out a few weeks, people have already managed to make rudimentary shooters, Tetris clones, and god knows what else. I’ve only dicked around in it for a few minutes, but it appeared to have dice roll support as well.
I don’t think this is a game people who prefer single player and co-op are going to have to worry about.
04/05/2010 at 00:36 Psychopomp says:
That’s right, the campaign is contains.
04/05/2010 at 01:55 Veret says:
That’s good to know, Psychopomp. I was a little worried that the campaign might is not contained of a decent single player experience. Probably still going to wait for the price to go down (assuming they start it at $50-60) just because I have no intention of ever touching the multiplayer aspect.
04/05/2010 at 03:06 Vinraith says:
@Psychopomp
Thanks, that sounds quite encouraging. Never having played DoW 2, how IS the campaign in SC2 structured? I gather it’s some kind of branching linear thing?
03/05/2010 at 23:36 ilurker says:
I know it keeps some pretty retro game design philosophies, but it’s a bit harsh to call it “dated”.
03/05/2010 at 23:38 Rich says:
Well done that man.
03/05/2010 at 23:39 cjlr says:
@ilurker
I see what you did there.
04/05/2010 at 03:45 The Hammer says:
Ahahaha. Took me a second or two to catch that. Excellent.
04/05/2010 at 06:49 Kommissar Nicko says:
YOUR COMMENTS ARE NOTHING COMPARED TO STARCRAFT 2!
04/05/2010 at 12:12 ChaK_ says:
gotta think twice to get that one, my brain thanks you
04/05/2010 at 15:37 westyfield says:
You win.
03/05/2010 at 23:38 malkav11 says:
It’ll be $60. How do I know this? Because that’s what the online stores (not digital distributors – I expect Blizzard to do that through their own store or not at all, although I’d be pleasantly surprised to be wrong) are asking for preorders.
Similarly, the Collector’s Edition, which I will, sigh, probably have to get, will be $100.
03/05/2010 at 23:41 Rich says:
I won’t be opening my wallet for more than £25. Really, I’ll probably be waiting long enough for it to be below £20.
03/05/2010 at 23:45 Chris says:
Given Blizzard’s almost coniseur attitude to their games now, I doubt this will be sub 20 for 2-3years. Certainly never on digital sale.
Sadly I don’t think I will enjoy the game enough to warrent buying it either :(
04/05/2010 at 00:15 Psychopomp says:
Before anyone starts blaming Kotick, Warcraft 3 was 60$ as well
04/05/2010 at 00:51 Salt says:
I’ve had it on pre-order from Amazon.co.uk for a while and so am getting it for £25 with free shipping. Price is up to about £30 now it looks like.
04/05/2010 at 05:59 GRIMDARK says:
@Psychopomp
What? You sure about that? I don’t think it was going for $60. Then again I bought the collectors version of WC3 so I paid more to begin with.
04/05/2010 at 09:55 subedii says:
No Psychopomp is right, WC3 was also $60. And I don’t really remember complaints about Blizzard messing with people on content back then either.
Also, why should this be charged less than a regular title like the post suggests? It’s got a completely full campaign, and a completely full multiplayer. People like to whine about how the game’s been “split into three to charge people more”, but if the content is there in both quantity and quality, then I don’t see how that’s the case. And Blizzard aren’t exactly known for skimping on either.
Heck, there aren’t many companies that would’ve maintained the first game for a decade, even given its online popularity. They would have just dropped it and immediately pumped out a sequel two years later.
04/05/2010 at 11:42 TotalBiscuit says:
I paid 30 quid for WC3 on release however many years ago, I will pay £30 for this too. It is a reasonable price considering the amount of content and the quality of said content. Penny-pinching on Blizzard games is just silly, unless of course you can remember the last bad game they released.
No?
It was the Death and Return of Superman, on the Megadrive. 16 years ago.
04/05/2010 at 13:05 Starky says:
I’m sorry TB but you are wrong, dead wrong.
Justice League Task Force was rubbish too, and that was a year after Superman.
03/05/2010 at 23:42 Wolfox says:
Not really interested, as it seems a way too “old-school” RTS for my personal taste. But then again, I’m sure July 27 will be a holiday on Korea, so what do I know?
03/05/2010 at 23:46 pkt-zer0 says:
Yeah, the price has already been announced to be 60 bucks. Before people rush to grab pitchforks and torches and storm the Activision headquarters, Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3 retailed at the same price.
And anyway, it’s STARCRAFT 2, ANYTHING ELSE IS NOTHING COMPARED TO IT.
Speaking of which, I’m wondering if Starcraft 2 will be this year’s Uncharted 2, winning a million “best [whatever]” awards.
03/05/2010 at 23:51 Jimbo says:
Then wonder no more, because there’s absolutely no chance of that happening whatsoever.
04/05/2010 at 14:52 Chris says:
Simply put, PC game. Won’t happen. They will win plenty of PC centric awards though.
06/05/2010 at 23:18 DJ Phantoon says:
I don’t remember any game in 2000 when Diablo 2 was launched costing 60 bucks. 50 was the new median with the advent of the PS2.
Warcraft 3 maybe, but it was launched in 2002, so I think this was still before 60 dollar video games. (Glad for the most part games have held at 50 here, the extra ten bucks makes me seriously reconsider the purchase.)
03/05/2010 at 23:50 rocketman71 says:
Meh
03/05/2010 at 23:52 Theoban says:
I bet you fill in online surveys to say ‘I don’t care’ too
03/05/2010 at 23:59 rocketman71 says:
@Theoban
No. It’s just that SC2 without LAN is not StarCraft… it’s just… I don’t know. Another of Kotick’s new cash cows. He fucked Guitar Hero, he fucked Call of Duty and now he’s fucking StarCraft dividing it in three and making some shitass facebook clone out of battle.net
I’m just depressed. And the worst thing is that we’re going down the hole, when thousands of idiots throw $25 in a stupid starry flying horse or $15 in 3 new maps and 2 recycled ones for a shitty game.
I think I’ll just keep playing the real StarCraft.
04/05/2010 at 00:06 Theoban says:
LAN? What? I’m sorry I thougtht this was TWENTY TEN. The future! Who connects using LAN anymore other than poor children and people ‘making a statement’?
04/05/2010 at 00:13 Robert says:
I read the book, it’s better.
04/05/2010 at 00:18 Psychopomp says:
@rocket
You seem to be under the impression that Kotick has any control over Blizzard.
04/05/2010 at 02:10 Starky says:
Indeed, which he probably doesn’t – He’s CEO of the holding company that Blizzard is under, but Blizzard has it’s own CEO that runs the business. I’m sure the guy has some influence, but I’d wager it’s written and underlined in the merger contract that Blizzard will have complete and utter self-control over all projects and IPs.
04/05/2010 at 08:39 Nick says:
As much as Guitar Hero is fucked, you can’t knock LA by Elliot Smith being included in GH5!
04/05/2010 at 09:58 Daniel Klein says:
Re: Kotick and his control over Blizzard. Recent interview with Dustin Browder on joystiq suggests that Activision is VERY hands-off with Blizzard. To quote the man:
So that sounds good. Makes good business sense, too: Blizzard have the most excellent track record of all game companies out there, and they’ve always been known to be a little different. You don’t have to be a “scientist” to come to the conclusion that their being different contributed to their being singularly successful, and all cynicism aside, Activision will see that, too. It’s not like Blizzard is underperforming anyway.
04/05/2010 at 09:59 Rich says:
@Theoban
Lack of LAN means no LAN-parties.
3 people in a house playing over the house’s local network used to be fun on a bun. Having to connect all three of those people, who are sitting right next to each other, through the house’s one unreliable internet connection and back… not so fun.
Also, at my old uni, all the people in halls would’ve been able to play huge and fast games over the campus network, behind the firewall. Trying to connect to game to the outside world was almost impossible, through said firewall was almost impossible.
Still, I’m in it for the single-player.
04/05/2010 at 10:01 Rich says:
Ugh, slightly garbled post there.
04/05/2010 at 11:47 TotalBiscuit says:
May I point out that there is as of yet no proof that the LAN play will actually send the data via the internet, rather than just act as an authentication device and let the router do all the work. It still sucks for those who’s internet goes down at random, but I very much doubt it’ll be the useless lag fest that people claim.
03/05/2010 at 23:55 feighnt says:
on July 27th, the government of North Korea will fall when millions of furious north Koreans are denied this game.
04/05/2010 at 02:11 Starky says:
*cough* South Koreans *cough*
04/05/2010 at 10:02 Rich says:
Not sure the average North Korean even has a home PC.
…or electricity if they live outside the cities.
04/05/2010 at 15:48 PleasingFungus says:
Correct answer: the average North Korean doesn’t have electricity regardless!
04/05/2010 at 00:00 bookwormat says:
I have this preordered for £31.50, which I guess is about 50% of what it will cost at release in euro. Preordering is usually a stupid idea, but this time I think It’s pretty safe, since I already know 2/3 of the game pretty well (multiplayer and editor).
04/05/2010 at 00:19 fearghaill says:
Awww, I new Blizzard loved me, but SC2 for my birthday is just too much.
04/05/2010 at 00:40 Mac says:
And before anyone mentions it. Starcraft 2 is not split up into 3 fullpriced games to milk money. The next 2 parts are expansions and will be priced accordingly. Instead of getting 10 missions of each faction in each expansion we get 30 of one. It ends up being the same amount in the end except that they can build a better story and campaign.
As for the pricing, Blizzard RTS’ has a ridiculously long life due to the map editor. I think most people will get way more than their moneys worth just on custom maps.
04/05/2010 at 12:32 archonsod says:
It’s Blizzard. They’ve done nothing but milk the same old franchises since Rock N Roll Racing.
05/05/2010 at 05:08 Sonic Goo says:
Rock’n'roll Racing 13 was pretty good, though. ;)
04/05/2010 at 00:41 DMJ says:
WILL THIS GAME WORK ON MY NETBOOK AND/OR SAMSUNG MICROWAVE
04/05/2010 at 00:46 DMJ says:
I…. I don’t know what came over me.
04/05/2010 at 00:42 Mario Figueiredo says:
So stores are too much of a burden, right? I mean, one actually has to get out and buy a game with filthy money full of other people germs or credit cards full of our germs (or our wife’s, depending). And come home with a highly flammable box or CD case that just takes too much room.
Yes, I guess offline stores are a thing of the past. I just happen to like things of the past. I like my boxes, and manuals and art covered CD and DVDs. Besides, there’s nothing like browsing an offline gaming store and surrender to online stores only my back catalog needs. Storing games in home made CDs and into non personalized 50 CD cases just doesn’t inspire me much.
Unfortunately (for Blizzard) I won’t be buying SC2 since Activision is currently also on my blacklist of shitty publishers that the only thing they will be getting from me is my middle finger until they stop behaving like assholes. But I register here my respect for their decision to launch for offline stores before selling online.
04/05/2010 at 06:50 Wisq says:
Sadly, every game I buy has either not been available in stores, or the online version has been better in some critical way(s).
I have a gift card for the local major games retailer, with stores in every mall. I received said card at Christmas. I have not found a single desired game that is available in said stores, and where buying it in said stores does not confer some sort of disadvantage that outweighs the advantage of getting it for “free” (as a gift).
The one exception was a game (Blood Bowl) that I really tried to get from stores but couldn’t find, eventually broke down and purchased online (months after release), and then saw it in stores a month later. RAAAGE.
04/05/2010 at 13:58 Peter Radiator Full Pig says:
You buy a boxed game, and then when you lose the disc, or it get scratches, or the cd key and you have to go buy the same game all over again, joy.
Owning something digital, for the rest of my life is a way better prospect, especially when you add in my thieving siblings who like to steal the shiny dvds.
04/05/2010 at 00:42 Tei says:
SC2 is going to be super-cute.
04/05/2010 at 00:47 Psychopomp says:
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=24401852969&sid=5000
Relevant.
04/05/2010 at 01:01 Jad says:
There is of course they half-way house between brick-and-mortar stores and digital distribution: online retailers like Amazon. Box and manual and no human interaction. Sure you have to wait a little longer to get it, but I’ve never really understood the “Day 1″/preorder mentality. The game will still be the same three days after it comes out.
04/05/2010 at 02:21 Fumarole says:
Not the multiplayer.
04/05/2010 at 01:03 Nicomallo says:
That lava looks like a cheesey pizza to me.
04/05/2010 at 01:04 Qjuad says:
Very excited – like Vinraith, the single player is what draws my eye and Blizzard rarely let me down in that department.
04/05/2010 at 01:11 Rick says:
Especially since StarCraft 2 began development long before Activision became even vaguely associated with Blizzard
04/05/2010 at 01:17 DrGonzo says:
Well that’s just ruined the lava effect for me now.
04/05/2010 at 01:49 Karthik says:
Blizzard! Give me Wings of Liberty, just the campaign, at a reduced price. No skirmish, no multiplayer, no snafu.
04/05/2010 at 01:51 Pew says:
It’s about time.
Although I fear I’ll play through the campaign a couple of times, get raped online too many times and then move to other games until The Old Republic finally destroys what is left of “time”. Maybe that was what the Doctor saw in the time rift: the TOR release date coinciding with the next season finale.
Oh right, Activision and SC2 eh? 12 years of waiting vs. a couple of Kotick-headed years of extremely overt douchebaggery. 12 years waiting wins it.
04/05/2010 at 02:14 Starky says:
I have a dreadful feeling as the release date draws that TOR will be a horrid let down.
04/05/2010 at 01:56 skinlo says:
I don’t understand the fuss for it? Both the graphics and gameplay look/seem dated.
04/05/2010 at 12:02 Sagan says:
@ skinlo:
That doesn’t matter if the game is awesome. Which it will probably be given Blizzard’s track record.
It could look and play like it is from 1995 and I wouldn’t mind if the game was great.
04/05/2010 at 02:21 Gabbo says:
Some strategy fans like base building/resource collecting/managment in their RTS’, even ones outside Korea? I never really played the original and that element alone has me on board for this one.
04/05/2010 at 03:04 Paul says:
Hello World!
Okay, yes this is for my benefit, but I needed to get the word of out of my new Indie Game company known as Verbigeration Studios. Our game’s called Afterwords, abd I’m can’t tell you more. Just visit the site, verbigerationstudios.blogspot.com
04/05/2010 at 03:08 Isometric says:
Where is the Diablo 3 info damnit.
04/05/2010 at 04:40 sassy says:
It should work fine on your samsung microwave. Just install on high for 1-2 minutes, make sure to watch through the window since it was programmed to create a fancy light show.
Also don’t be surprised if the disk doesn’t come out quite the same. Due to the high rotation speeds of the samsung microwave, it has been known to damage some disks
04/05/2010 at 04:41 sassy says:
respond failure. I suck at life
04/05/2010 at 05:00 half says:
The price was announced a couple weeks ago, and b-net will be free…
did we miss this?
http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/press/pressreleases.html?100408
04/05/2010 at 06:01 GRIMDARK says:
The release date honestly doesn’t surprise me, because Blizzard isn’t Blizzard anymore. It’s ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, and Activision doesn’t fuck around with that “when it’s done” bullshit. Their shareholders don’t allow it.
It’s going to be released on time. It’s going to be overpriced. It’s going to have shit DRM.
Such are the realities of PC Gaming these days.
04/05/2010 at 06:53 Wisq says:
Interestingly, the “LI” seems to merge into a “U” at first glance with my browser’s font, meaning I read this as “Activision Buzzard”. Which seems somehow appropriate, given the point you were making. Sort of.
04/05/2010 at 08:22 Optimaximal says:
In all fairness to the mad Kotick machine, DRM is not something they’ve dabbled with yet.
It’s probably coming, but the shareholders will be easily scared off after viewing what’s happening to Ubisoft’s PC credibility.
04/05/2010 at 06:26 neolith says:
Any word on the DRM? Are they still forcing people to sign up for the new Battle.net for this?
04/05/2010 at 08:23 pkt-zer0 says:
Yes. If it bothers you that much, there’ll most likely be a crack out, anyway.
04/05/2010 at 07:25 Longrat says:
It’s gonna cost 60$. Thank you activision!
04/05/2010 at 11:51 TotalBiscuit says:
*PSST* Warcraft 3 and Diablo 2 also cost $60, years before Activision got anywhere near Blizzard. Don’t let that stop you getting angry for no reason though.
04/05/2010 at 13:09 Longrat says:
Oh well, now I just feel stupid. I hope you’re happy!
By the way, I still don’t see any justification for paying 60$ for a game, but that’s besides the point.
04/05/2010 at 13:19 Longrat says:
Well, other than the point of getting angry at a 60$ game. There’s an industry standard for a reason, and just because you CAN charge people more, doesn’t mean you SHOULD.
Valve, once again, is a great example of how to treat the community right.
04/05/2010 at 17:26 suibhne says:
I got in my Amazon order just under the wire, when Amazon still has it priced at $50. With tiny Gold Box savings, that came to about $47 – not great by any stretch, but probably better than SC2 will be for at least a few months after release. Unfortunately, Amazon debuted Diablo 3 at $60, so there was no similar loophole there.
04/05/2010 at 21:51 FunkyBadger says:
I still don’t see any justification for paying 60$ for a game
Capitalism for beginners: because that’s how much it costs. If you’re not willing to pay that, they don’t. The market will find its own level.
04/05/2010 at 07:52 Magic H8 Ball says:
http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/StarCraft_II:_Wings_of_Liberty
Very in-depth article about the first campaign.
04/05/2010 at 07:58 Vinraith says:
Thanks, that also looks encouraging.
04/05/2010 at 09:13 Sarlix says:
You guys confuse me. In another thread you were complaining how modern RTS games are lacking the S’ and they are more like action games. Now SC2 campaign has been described as being like DOW2, which from what I understand is and action game, or RTA, and you seem to be encouraged by that. Hmmm me no understand.
04/05/2010 at 10:09 pkt-zer0 says:
@Sarlix: Similar to DOW2 in the “overgame”, I’d think, the non-linear mission structure, sidequests, acquiring resources to spend on unit upgrades, etc.
04/05/2010 at 16:24 Vinraith says:
@Sarlix
I like action games, too, I just wish they’d call them action games. I’m not totally clear on which side of the line SC2 falls on, but as long as the campaign is non-linear and the gameplay is interesting I’m ok with it coming out as either an RTS or an RT”S.” Lamenting that there are so few of the former doesn’t prevent one from enjoying the latter.
04/05/2010 at 17:14 pkt-zer0 says:
@Vin: You know, you could just turn the speed slider down, if you find the real-time factor to be that seriously limiting to implementing your strategies.
04/05/2010 at 20:06 Vinraith says:
@pkt-zer0
Interesting, I didn’t know there was one. Can you pause and issue, as well? That’d put it firmly in the RTS (as in, real S) category to my thinking. Failing that, though, it still looks like a fun RT”S” either way.
04/05/2010 at 20:41 pkt-zer0 says:
@Vin: No idea if you can issue orders while paused, that’d likely be a single-player exclusive feature, so it’s not in the beta. The slowest speed setting is twice as slow as the fastest (which is the standard one), so if even that is still a concern, you might as well be complaining about the game not being turn-based.
(Which is actually what I’d do, as real-time-with-pause kind of defeats the purpose of having things be in real-time in the first place.)
04/05/2010 at 22:44 Vinraith says:
@pkt-zer0
Sounds good. Again, I’m not complaining, I’m just drawing a distinction between more action oriented RT”S”(action) games, which I enjoy, and slower, more strategic RTS(strategy) games, which I enjoy even more. If Starcraft 2 were firmly in the former category I’d still buy it and enjoy the hell out of it, that it’s possible to play it more slowly (thus making the more micro-oriented end of the game more accessible to a more non-action gamer like myself) just makes it that much better.
Anyway, between that and the campaign information, I’m really looking forward to this one.
05/05/2010 at 00:27 pkt-zer0 says:
@Vin: Preferences are all fine and dandy, I just disagree with the notion that time management and multitasking makes SC2 action-oriented. Strategy is still key (just try not scouting see what happens), it’s just that deciding when and what to focus on is also part of that. Heck, SC2 has been criticized for its lack of micro, and with macro being simplified, you can play decently with way lesser APM. So I don’t think the strategy part of the game is as inaccessible here as most people make it out to be.
05/05/2010 at 00:41 Vinraith says:
@pkt-zer0
As I said earlier in the thread, I’ve no idea which side of the divide SC2 falls on. I’ve not played it and know little about how it plays. Some RTS games are more action games than strategy games, I’m not here to claim SC2 is one of them, and I enjoy both anyway.
04/05/2010 at 08:02 Turin Turambar says:
“Like the internet, but located in annoying places, asking higher prices…”
Not really, UK prices are usually cheaper than Steam prices in the release date.
04/05/2010 at 08:38 Nick says:
Well, it really depends, UK prices in store can be a bit of a rip off.. online UK prices from Amazon or Play however are usually a bit cheaper.
04/05/2010 at 08:10 Biscuitry says:
Going with my original plan of not bothering, I think.
04/05/2010 at 09:52 subedii says:
No Psychopomp is right, WC3 was also $60. And I don’t really remember complaints about Blizzard shafting people on content back then either.
Also, why should this be charged less than a regular title like the post suggests? It’s got a completely full campaign, and a completely full multiplayer. People like to whine about how the game’s been “split into three to charge people more”, but if the content is there in both quantity and quality, then I don’t see how that’s the case. And Blizzard aren’t exactly known for skimping on either. Heck, there aren’t many companies that would’ve maintained the first game for a decade, even given its online popularity. They would have just dropped it and immediately pumped out a sequel two years later.
04/05/2010 at 11:26 Robert says:
You just wait, the man is out for you too. Us all. I have to go again before he finds me. Remember.
06/05/2010 at 23:20 DJ Phantoon says:
It was fifty bucks where I lived. Seriously.
04/05/2010 at 10:02 Daniel Klein says:
Since I’ve already gotten serious double digit hours of entertainment from the beta, this one is a no-brainer for me. I’m sure I’ll love the single player campaign (although it’ll be too easy, after all the multiplayer I’ve been playing, but hey), and I cannot wait what craziness custom map makers will come up with (DotA was created in a much inferior map editor), but mostly I see myself playing hundreds and hundreds of multiplayer games. Divided by the amount of entertainment I expect to derive from it, the game will be practically free.
04/05/2010 at 10:08 Tei says:
Lets purposelly ignore all other issues.
Graphics!. I feel like SC2 will somehow push this part forward. Isonometric has some artistic limits imposed, and I feel like the Blizzards artist are tryiing to break these limits to create visuals of a quality you are not supposed to be able to in a isonometric game.
Is a lost war, since graphically you need the asonometrics norms so it works visually. But It will work on some special areas.
Games like “World at War” and “Supreme Commander” are tryiing to break this mold. This mold make so to everything works, a tank size is limited to about x 5 the width a soldier. And a house about x3 the width a tank. Hence.. .everything looks like toys. Hence, you don’t really have a war.
“World in Conflit” fixed that with another approach: you manage groups of units. So is easier to control then… but thats like cheating.
I feel like SC2 will cheat in a different way, to make some areas that will look real, even epic. Will provide some inmersion, on a game with aliens fighting with purple blades.
04/05/2010 at 10:18 Rinox says:
Anyone know if there will be actual campaign co-op? I mean is this “co-op vs AI” mode just like playing a skirmish map with a friend on team I and 2 computer players on team II or is there more to it?
04/05/2010 at 11:11 Sagan says:
THE SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN HAS ONE LESS MISSION THAN THE FIRST GAME! HOW DARE THEY MAKE IT COST THE SAME?
04/05/2010 at 11:49 Sagan says:
Actually I was wrong. It is in fact cheaper than the first game.
I AM STILL OUTRAGED!
04/05/2010 at 13:36 Newblade says:
And SNES cartridges were a lot more expensive. What’s your point?
04/05/2010 at 14:24 Sagan says:
I wanted to point out how ridiculous people are for thinking Starcraft 2 is overpriced.
a) They say that the game is overpriced because Blizzard have already said that they can’t finish all three campaigns for release and are going to release the other two as expansions. And that obviously means that they just want to triple the amount of money that they make, and Blizzard’s reasons aren’t real reasons. The argument doesn’t make any sense because the game will have exactly one less mission than the first one did. (and three more than Brood War had) How is it overpriced because of that? And if Blizzard are making pretty much as many missions for this as they did for the first one, why do people believe that Blizzard doesn’t have good reasons for splitting the game up?
b) They say that the game is overpriced because it’s 60€ instead of the 50€ that are common nowadays. Except 60€ is exactly as much as the first one cost. (actually it’s a little cheaper) That’s how inflation works. Sure, it looks like it is more expensive, but it isn’t.
04/05/2010 at 14:47 Newblade says:
The original didn’t require a constant Internet connection for the single player campaign, did it?
04/05/2010 at 15:11 Xocrates says:
@Newblade: Neither does this one. You need to activate online but afterwards you’re free to play offline.
04/05/2010 at 16:03 subedii says:
Hush Xocrates, we can’t have you dampening the irrational scaremongering.
04/05/2010 at 16:21 Newblade says:
Irrational? That was what I was told (I didn’t get into the beta). If no constant internet connection is required, then fine, but if that would be the case, I’d expect a rage of Ubisoft proportions.
04/05/2010 at 12:14 Mac says:
Starcraft 2 has been in beta for almost half a year when it’ll get released. And the actual game has been developed for several years before that. It was announced at Blizzcon 3 years ago and it looked pretty finished then.
And still there’s people (in these comments, even) going all “KOTICK ACTIVISION ARGHHH!!!” and think that the game is rushed. People are stupid. Blizzard’s “when it’s done” goal hasn’t changed at all.
As for basebuilding, thank god there’s still an RTS that’s keeping it.
04/05/2010 at 13:10 Mario Figueiredo says:
>> people are stupid
Yes they are. And I am. And you too.
But on what matters to me, I have no critic to make to the game. I actually think it looks impressive, I was way impressed when Ars Technica launched a recent article on SC 2 single-player efforts and this is SC 2, the sucessor to one of the best RTS ever made.
But it’s Activision Blizzard today. Not Blizzard. And currently I don’t buy Activision. So I won’t buy SC 2. Dig it?
04/05/2010 at 16:44 Mac says:
It’s actually Vivendi, Vivendi has always owned Blizzard, and Vivendi is majority shareholder of Activision Blizzard. So there’s nothing new except made up fear- and rumormongering. But cheers on contributing to the stupid quota and sticking it to the man I guess?
04/05/2010 at 19:59 Mario Figueiredo says:
Thanks. Everyone does. But I guess you think you are special.
As for your Vivendi thing… I totally miss your point. What is exactly you want to say? That I should blame Vivendi and not Activision? Ok, I blame Vivendi. Now… I still won’t be buying SC 2. So, go pester someone else.
04/05/2010 at 22:36 Mac says:
Yeah, I am apparently, since I don’t have irrational fears over some part of a company name when they don’t have anything to do with the product.
I’d get some professional to look at your projection issues though, it’s not very pretty.
04/05/2010 at 12:21 ChaK_ says:
meh
Go work on DIII now
kthxbay
04/05/2010 at 13:08 mcnubbins says:
July 27 is a pretty bad time to be playing video games. I hope they realize this and release Diablo III when it’s really cold and dark outside. Perhaps sometime around the next ice age.
04/05/2010 at 13:23 Sarlix says:
This may be a stupid question or an obvious one depending how you look at it. Is SC2 going to be PC exclusive?
04/05/2010 at 17:00 Adam Whitehead says:
PC and Mac exclusive, no consoles.
04/05/2010 at 17:21 Sarlix says:
Thanks.
I guess this mean Blizzard are the only Dev’s still putting out PC only AAA titles.?
06/05/2010 at 15:39 Adam Whitehead says:
Not for long. DIABLO 3 is looking increasingly likely to be a multi-platform release. SC2 and WoW will remain PC-only, of course.
04/05/2010 at 13:50 EyeMessiah says:
Good work spam man, good work.
Also, way to target your audience!
04/05/2010 at 13:51 EyeMessiah says:
This was meant to be a reply to “dresses”.
04/05/2010 at 15:37 Wrathfire says:
Here, Here! Where is Diablo III???
04/05/2010 at 15:43 Chris says:
@DMJ:
“I…. I don’t know what came over me.”
Sorry. It’s Tuesday.
04/05/2010 at 16:00 subedii says:
Pretty certain it’s PC exclusive. Blizzard at least have expressed no interest so far in a console port, and if one happens it’s going to be well after the fact and not really a focus for development. RTS’s generally do poorly on the consoles, even ones built for them (Halo Wars was probably the biggest exception, having sold about a million units).
Plus it would be difficult to control such a micro-heavy game without a mouse. Large scale games like SupCom 2 are more manageable, but we’re talking about a game where “Actions Per Minute” is a registered statistic in high level play.
Also interesting to note, this is probably going to be the biggest PC game in years not releasing on Steam either. Blizzard will probably be doing their own distribution.
04/05/2010 at 16:01 subedii says:
Response to Sarlix
04/05/2010 at 17:23 Sarlix says:
Interesting.. Thanks. :)
04/05/2010 at 17:33 undead dolphin hacker says:
Psh. Starcraft. Last thing I want is to get sucked into the punishing online crap in a desperate attempt to find value after getting bored with the single…
Wait, it’s kind of like Dawn of War 2? YOU HAVE MY EAR GOOD SIR.
Sadly the reviews for this game will be totally freaking worthless. EDGE will give it an 8 to be EDGE-y (and because Blizzard isn’t British) but everyone else will give it a 9 or 10 or 11. And no matter the score, the text will read like gushy memories of teenage dialup escapades, Big Game Hunters, and zerg rushes. Not, you know, about whether the game is any fun single-player or not. You’ll get about two sentences: “The single player story is new and exciting. And it’s fun.” The rest of the review will deal with multiplayer.
Calling it now, betting a fiver.
04/05/2010 at 17:58 Azradesh says:
Actually with a Blizzard game you can now just put your CD Key in your Battle.Net account and from then on download the game as many times you want and play it anywhere.
04/05/2010 at 18:00 Azradesh says:
Gah, that was a reply attempt @ “Peter Radiator Full Pig”
05/05/2010 at 13:54 littlewilly91 says:
On Amazon its 30 pounds, cut from 45
06/05/2010 at 15:42 Adam Whitehead says:
SC2′s pricing, according to Amazon.co.uk, is ludicrous.
The normal edition has an RRP of £44.99. Whilst RRPs are mostly works of fiction anyway, that’s still ridiculous. 50% higher than the cost at which you can buy new games in GAME? Uh-huh.
The collector’s edition has an RRP of £69.99 (130% higher than the cost of a new game), which is insane. Okay, the art book should be nice and the CD soundtrack could be good, but the rest of it is useless. A Thor mini-pet to run around in WoW with? I don’t play WoW and I probably won’t play much, if any multiplayer, so the BattleNet stuff is also of no value. And the keychain with SC1 and BW installed is a nice idea, but ultimately pointless. If you’re enough of a STARCRAFT nut to consider buying this, you’ll probably have at least one copy of the original two games, if not more, already.
07/05/2010 at 08:32 Torqual says:
*Inhibitors on* Sorry to interrupt the hyperspacerace. But take a look on Blizzard’s marketing ideas for battle.net 2.0.
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=19381851891&sid=3000
Diablo2 and Starcraft were good because of the FREE battle.net. To sell mappacks on the battle.net 2.0 is not free. To have no LAN-Mode is not free. For Diablo3 Blizzard will charge a monthly fee, so plz stop the hype about Blizzard.
They are just a bunch of greedy people. Most of the original Blizzard crew who worked on Starcraft, Diablo and Warcraft 3 are not working for the actual Blizzard company any more. The “spirit” of the old games is dead, now the only thing is $$$.
Have a nice day
07/05/2010 at 08:55 mrmud says:
There will be monthly fees for Diablo3 in certain areas of the world (where the game itself will cost less). Afaik there will be no monthly fee for europeans or americans.
I have absolutely no problem with SC2 map creators charging money for the maps they made should they want to. It will only lead to bigger and better maps.
03/07/2010 at 09:10 wedding dresses says:
really good, nice
.Very informative and trustworthy blog. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. I have booked marked your site and am about to email it to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy readingwedding dressesquinceanera dresses
13/08/2010 at 05:50 nicklang says:
I bought the game and I am really enjoying it, graphically its not going to blow your mind, but for what they are they do the job, it almost seems like an updated version of warcraft 3′s graphic engine. it really has the best of 3 worlds, it took the good from warcraft 3, the original starcraft, and even Dawn of war with all the rpg elements. And what I mean by that is the ability to up grade your units and unlock different abilities in between missions, you are able to do this by earning credits when you complete missions, This ads more strategy to the campaign. Dawn of war had a very similar system and it was the best thing about that game. So props to blizzard for implementing that system.
01/09/2010 at 19:35 mike says:
No LAN No Sale !!!
It’s simply an unnecessary waste of resources to have to connect to battle.net just to play against friends here in the same room. One should be able to play a LAN game at home, without having to get permission from Blizzard every time. Even Microsoft’s Genuine Advantage only checks occasionally.
As much as I was looking forward to SC2, the refusal to include LAN is intolerable. There are many other games out there, just as fun, that costs less and do include a LAN option. If they want my money ($240 if I want a copy of each computer), they’ll have to give in on that point.