Hell Freezes: Starcraft 2 Dated

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.”


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.


  1. geldonyetich says:

    And it will sell 50 million copies, and the streets will run red with Zerg rushes.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

    • 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.

    • Psychopomp says:

      That’s right, the campaign is contains.

    • 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.

    • Vinraith says:


      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?

  4. ilurker says:

    I know it keeps some pretty retro game design philosophies, but it’s a bit harsh to call it “dated”.

  5. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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 :(

    • Psychopomp says:

      Before anyone starts blaming Kotick, Warcraft 3 was 60$ as well

    • 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.

    • GRIMDARK says:


      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.

    • 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.

    • 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.


      It was the Death and Return of Superman, on the Megadrive. 16 years ago.

    • 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.

  6. 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?

  7. 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.


    Speaking of which, I’m wondering if Starcraft 2 will be this year’s Uncharted 2, winning a million “best [whatever]” awards.

    • Jimbo says:

      Then wonder no more, because there’s absolutely no chance of that happening whatsoever.

    • Chris says:

      Simply put, PC game. Won’t happen. They will win plenty of PC centric awards though.

    • 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.)

  8. rocketman71 says:


    • Theoban says:

      I bet you fill in online surveys to say ‘I don’t care’ too

    • rocketman71 says:


      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.

    • 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’?

    • Robert says:

      I read the book, it’s better.

    • Psychopomp says:


      You seem to be under the impression that Kotick has any control over Blizzard.

    • 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.

    • Nick says:

      As much as Guitar Hero is fucked, you can’t knock LA by Elliot Smith being included in GH5!

    • 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:

      I certainly haven’t had any conversations with anybody from Activision in six months or a year. We did a little presentation for the board of directors, but it was literally just like, “And here’s what we’re doing. Thank you.” That’s all it was. So, I’m certainly not seeing any pressure from those guys on products. We’re just focused on the game and they’ve been nothing but supportive of us so far.

      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.

    • Rich says:


      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.

    • Rich says:

      Ugh, slightly garbled post there.

    • 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.

  9. feighnt says:

    on July 27th, the government of North Korea will fall when millions of furious north Koreans are denied this game.

  10. 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).

  11. fearghaill says:

    Awww, I new Blizzard loved me, but SC2 for my birthday is just too much.

  12. 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.

    • archonsod says:

      It’s Blizzard. They’ve done nothing but milk the same old franchises since Rock N Roll Racing.

    • Sonic Goo says:

      Rock’n’roll Racing 13 was pretty good, though. ;)

  13. DMJ says:


  14. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  15. Tei says:

    SC2 is going to be super-cute.

  16. 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.

  17. Nicomallo says:

    That lava looks like a cheesey pizza to me.

  18. Qjuad says:

    Very excited – like Vinraith, the single player is what draws my eye and Blizzard rarely let me down in that department.

  19. Rick says:

    Especially since StarCraft 2 began development long before Activision became even vaguely associated with Blizzard

  20. DrGonzo says:

    Well that’s just ruined the lava effect for me now.

  21. Karthik says:

    Blizzard! Give me Wings of Liberty, just the campaign, at a reduced price. No skirmish, no multiplayer, no snafu.

  22. 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.

    • Starky says:

      I have a dreadful feeling as the release date draws that TOR will be a horrid let down.

  23. skinlo says:

    I don’t understand the fuss for it? Both the graphics and gameplay look/seem dated.

    • 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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

  26. Isometric says:

    Where is the Diablo 3 info damnit.

  27. 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

  28. half says:

    The price was announced a couple weeks ago, and b-net will be free…

    did we miss this?

    link to us.blizzard.com

  29. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  30. neolith says:

    Any word on the DRM? Are they still forcing people to sign up for the new Battle.net for this?

    • pkt-zer0 says:

      Yes. If it bothers you that much, there’ll most likely be a crack out, anyway.

  31. Longrat says:

    It’s gonna cost 60$. Thank you activision!

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  32. Magic H8 Ball says:

    Vinraith said:

    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?

    link to starcraft.wikia.com

    Very in-depth article about the first campaign.

    • Vinraith says:

      Thanks, that also looks encouraging.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • Vinraith says:


      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.

    • 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.

    • Vinraith says:


      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.

    • 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.)

    • Vinraith says:


      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.

    • 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.

    • Vinraith says:


      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.

  33. 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.

    • 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.

  34. Biscuitry says:

    Going with my original plan of not bothering, I think.

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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?

  39. Sagan says:


    • Sagan says:

      Actually I was wrong. It is in fact cheaper than the first game.


    • Newblade says:

      And SNES cartridges were a lot more expensive. What’s your point?

    • 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.

    • Newblade says:

      The original didn’t require a constant Internet connection for the single player campaign, did it?

    • Xocrates says:

      @Newblade: Neither does this one. You need to activate online but afterwards you’re free to play offline.

    • subedii says:

      Hush Xocrates, we can’t have you dampening the irrational scaremongering.

    • 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.

  40. 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.

    • 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?

    • 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?

    • 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.

    • 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.

  41. ChaK_ says:


    Go work on DIII now


  42. 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.

  43. 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?

  44. EyeMessiah says:

    Good work spam man, good work.

    Also, way to target your audience!

  45. Wrathfire says:

    Here, Here! Where is Diablo III???

  46. Chris says:

    “I…. I don’t know what came over me.”

    Sorry. It’s Tuesday.

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

    • Azradesh says:

      Gah, that was a reply attempt @ “Peter Radiator Full Pig”

  50. littlewilly91 says:

    On Amazon its 30 pounds, cut from 45