News Blizzard: "We're not milking StarCraft 2"

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/11/13/blizzard-we-re-not-milking-starcraft-2/1

Since the announcement that StarCraft 2 would become three games, Blizzard has adamantly denied doing it to make more money.

 

Very hard to believe.

I dunno how they can sustain the saying "this would be a better gaming experience" as the player will have to wait at least 2 years to se the conclusion of the game. They could say anything but this IMO.

If they aren't aiming to milk the game, let's see if the first episode will only cost a third of an actual game.

 

Where exactly does the change of a disc just to play a different campaign (or a different race in multiplayer maybe) further my gaming experience?

About the money, it's not too bad for me. These are three single games, not one game plus two expansions, right? If you can play every race with every version it's fine. I'll just get two friends to buy the other two games, so we can swap. We would still be able to play the multiplayer together.

All bullsh*t, they are milking every single franchise. Just look at WoW, or the upcoming Diablo. There will be subscription fees to play it online (and probably no way to play it via LAN), just wait.

 

If it was just old fashioned Blizzard I would trust what they say but with Activisions influence and their current franchise milking attitude, who knows.

 

Gotta stick up for blizzard here as its the only game company left that i got faith in.

They most likely came up with a few problems and rather rush the game out or push the release date back they are spilting it up into 3 to get it release and then spend more time making the other 2 even more awesome.

I can see them either releasing the games at expansion pack price or making each game into a full size game.

Maybe im just blinded by blizzard fanboyness but after westwood got eaten by EA i lost faith it just about all game companies

 

My understanding is that it doesn't work this way. Each game has a single singleplayer campaign focusing on one race. In multiplayer you can play as the other sides - but each new game that comes out will include new maps, modes, units and so on that you can't use unless you have the latest game.

 

Now that's even worse. - It means you cannot play the game properly until all units are out. Now we'll have to wait even longer... I've always hated expansions for strategy games.

 

@ Joe: So, let's say I get Episode 1 and two friends get the other two. We then install install them all but just keep our original disc. I know that'd be close to pirating but I know that's what loads of people will do and Blizzard have to take that into account when they start weighing the money they'll earn (as counting is no option when you have tons of it). Do you think that'd work? Cause I don't think they can expect you to put the correct disc in if you want to play with either race or to have all 3 discs in while playing SC2 MP v3...

Anyways... If he says "I guarantee!" or "I give my word!" 1 more time ... How could you believe somebody saying "PROMISE!!!!!" that often?

 

what about Valve?

 

Not sure - but with BattleNet authetication I wouldn't count on it being as easy as that. Blizzard have a fair bit of experience in online security now, y'know.

As for compatibility, the way I understand it is that Ep1 will have mode X and Y number of units and maps. Ep 2 will have Z modes and Y2 units and maps and so on. So, if you just have Ep 3 then you can play against Ep 1 - but you can only use the stuff that was already in Ep 1.

I think that if you're just after multiplayer then Ep 3 is the way to go, though I'm not sure, as it will logically have to include all previous content, plus the latest. If you want the singleplayer campaigns too (or just want it sooner) though then you'll need Ep 1 and 2.

 

Ofc there wasn't a conversation like that.. it's soo glaringly obvious that no one had to say it..they all thought it though

 

Am I the only one who sees that splitting the game into three disks will mean longer and better campaign modes?
All RTS I play have way to short campaigns and I really like the whole storytelling part of it. If I have to pay for 100h of campaign rather then 30h I am willing todo that

 

Being more of a solo player and having reasonable respect for Blizzard in their decisions over the years, even though some have been disappointing (such as abandoning some very interesting game ideas), the overall quality of what they have been releasing seriously outweighs any "oh they're just milking it" thoughts for me.

Sure the business side of it all will be happy with the solution, more of a steady income from sales only, but I can't help thinking we can't really know for sure the exact reasons for the three part release plan. It's not like it's something common among RTS games, granted it seems to be a trend in general currently. With that I have to say they must have thought about how it might turn against them in terms of feedback, so seeing they still decided to do it could just be that they honestly think it will work out better for not just them, but for the gamers they make the games for.

If it turns out an enjoyable and well polished game, as I would imagine is to be expected, I sure as hell won't go crying over having several proper campaigns while still having access to battle.net.

 

Saying that monetary influence was not present to me is unfortunately not stating it correctly because it had a influence no matter how you look at it.

If they planned the initial release with all 3 campaigns it would of taken longer to develop which in turn would reduce their profits, they could not justify, lets say 70 missions with full movie sequences and an amazing story for $50, so they decided to split it in three separate games.

Do I disagree with their decision? Absolutely not! If they give me 70 quality missions with an amazing story and ground breaking FMV sequences I would gladly for out the money for all three games.

So people stop complaining and hope that they do a great job like the beloved Blizzard we know.

 

I would also like to add to my statement above that this trend is normal in Video games and we will see it more and more.

Developing games has always had one major negative, and it's CASH FLOW. for any business to retain some level of certainty you must maintain a steady cash flow in your business, that is why MMO's and Episodic gaming is becoming more popular, out of a business standpoint you can maintain that very important cash flow and react to complaints quicker and develop your game more.

Financing has always been one of the problems for game developers and this type of scenario will become more relevant to maintain cash flow in the business.

In the end I think it means higher quality games for us as gamers ans the developers can risk a little less and listen to us more, because if they don't we will just abandon their project.

 

Knowing Blizzard and how they do things and treat they customers I think everything will turn out good. They said it already: every game will include one full campaign (for a single race) and full multiplayer. IMO they the new MP features from the later games will be release as updates for the earlier ones as they split the game because of the SP experience and the will want the MP to be same trough all 3 games.

 

A little too many '100%'s, 'guaranteed's, etc in that quote to make it sound believable

 

There's only one important thing: "Carrier has arrived."

 

Or maybe... "Carrier will soon arrive, with purchase of expansion set"

 

I doubt they are milking it, knowing blizzard's reputation in the past, there something more to the trilogy decision than meets the eye