Well I downloaded the starcraft 2 installer thing so I could play when it releases on Tuesday. Starcraft is the first game I ever played online and I loved the campaign (I'm not any good online and I prefer  SP in all game except fifa). So at first I thought it was a no brainer, but as the time gets closer i'm asking myself if I really wanna encourage blizzard in a $60 PC game and the splitting up of the campaigns to make more money. I mean if anyone desereves it it's probably blizzard but I'm scared of who's gonna try some shit like this again.

My guess would be something really popular like CoD, GTA or maybe even Halo and Gran Turismo

whether you buy it or not it is going to be massively successful so you might as well enjoy yourself

Absolutely not!

Plus, I do not care that they split it up into three parts since each part will have the content that the full story mode of SC1 had.

I chuckle at the people who bitch that Blizzard is ripping them off.  They assume that there are 2 choices, pay your money for 1/3 of the game or pay the same for the entire thing.  Were that the case, they would have a point.

In reality, the choice is this...

(1.)  Blizzard does the 3 game arc, and charge accordingly or...

(2.)  Blizzard compresses the story down from 25 to 30 missions a faction to 8 to 10 missions and gives us all 3 factions at once.... then releases expansion packs to fill in the story gaps. 

Net result is the SAME cost wise, and less tidy and more jumpy story wise.

For those that say that Blizzard should give the entire 80 missions to you for $60, well then I would guess that (1.) you feel that Blizzard is obligated to you personally <hint... they aren't> (2.) you do not understand economics, nor how much a game of that scope would cost or (3.) both of the previous.

Plus, you get the full multiplayer experience from day one.  Some people don't care about the story.  In that case, Wings of Liberty will provide what they need.  For those of us that do like the story, we'll be getting the full set.  Personally, if the game is good, and the expansions follow suit it'll be worth the cost.

Only you can make that decision for yourself... "the answers you seek lie within."

I don't mind paying 60 dollars for a PC game really. I don't buy games that often. And the games that I buy, I'd pay a 100 dollars for.

Really I paid a hell of a lot more than 60 for zelda ocarina of time.

yes, i know there's reason, but whatever. They're goal's to make the most money they can, while puting out a good game.

maybe this strategy will work, maybe it won't. They can do what they want. Everyone should speak with their money, and they will adjust.

Even though I have no intention of buying SC2 (just not a fan), if you've been waiting years for the game, and you've potentially spent hundreds of hours playing the original, $60 really isn't anything relative to the number of hours most people are likely to play SC2. For some I'd imagine it will be virtually the only thing they play for quite some time.

Oh I don't doub't the value of the game only the possible precedent it might set for other companys not as worthy of such a claim (as stated in the OP GTA and CoD but maybe i'm just biased as I don't think these games are THAT good)

I agree with you there.  All we can do is hope that if companies do get to the point where they abuse this paradigm, people will vote with their money.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I would rather have a game three times as long, with a more filled in story and more missions per race. I always wished that the original starcraft was longer, even after the expansion.

the day is almost here : )

While I'm not too happy about the $60 price tag or the split into 3 installments, it seems weird to say other franchises will do the same.  Brood War came out just 8 months after StarCraft and I don't remember a ton of controversy relating to the price or time frame.  Call of Duty is already one of the worst (sans Guitar Hero).  Remember, it has been nearly twelve years since Brood War.  Call of Duty didn't even come onto the scene until 5 years after StarCraft, and is releasing its SEVENTH main game later this year.  That doesn't even include expansions and console versions.  Can it really get much worse than yearly releases?  If they started releasing a new Call of Duty with 1/3 the single player content every 4 months, would you even have any desire to buy them?