After sleeping on it, I realized that we all have made a LOT of assumptions on how this will go down and this was more of a Blizzard PR fuck up. What we have here is a failure to comunicate. The only thing that they have said that's annoying the hell out of me is what I voiced earlier. The story in their previous RTS games was awesome cause you also got to play on the "bad/evil" side before everything was resolved, you had to fix everything YOU screwed up, basically. From the sound of this they won't have that, since each campaign will finish just fine and everything.

Yeah playing 30 missions in a row as one race is rather excessive. I'd much rather have the main game and each expansion each take 10 missions from each campaign so they can interweave a real story together and throw in some variety. 30 straight missions as one race (and then waiting a year for the expansion) is going to end up being very boring.

By the way, I'm also one of those who bought the original game just for the campaigns, never touched multiplayer. Same for the Warcraft and Diablo series.

I think this is a bit of an overreaction.

Maybe they wanted players to be able to buy only the campaigns they wanted to play? If it all adds up to $50, I don't think there's really a reason for complaint, other than the stupidity of buying 3 discs.

So for someone to say they're going to buy the first $15 disc and pirate the rest...that's stupid. You're basically saying you were going to pay $50 for Starcraft II, but since they put it on three separate discs adding up to $50, you decide you'll just pay $15? That logic really doesn't add up.

Unless of course it ends up being more than $50, in which case Blizzard made a boo-boo.

lol, I can't remember how many shitty games I have bought between now and the last Blizzard release. I don't give a shit if it cost $200, I will buy it. The quality per dollar would be a lot higher then the last $2000 I have spent.

I don't think anyone here would have complained if the total came to $70 or less, but from the way they make it sound it will be a lot more. Like I said above, Blizzard jus did not announce this the right way.

It could be an overreaction, but I think people are waiting for some clarification in the price department.

I disagree with the approach, but I see it this way:

At least it isn't a monthly fee to play it. You buy it (however much it may be, 30 of my crazy British punds perhaps) and enjoy it for a year by itself. A month for the online fees would be £6-8. Then there are th others. If it's as good as 'they' say it will be, then why wouldn't we be playing it in 10 years? I still play Command And Conquer Red Alert 2 now and again, and I've had it since release day.

It could be just like Company Of Heroes: Opposing fronts, without the massive patch. With the release of the standalone expansion, a patch was released so those with only the original could play against someone using the new army, but couldn't use the units.

If they hadn't said anything about this before release, they would have goten away with it, not questions asked so there's no point complaining now.

I never did think much of Blizzard anyway. I'm looking forward to Diablo III, I guess, but 2 never really hooked me. Finished the campaign in about 6/7 hours with a friend and didn't go back to it. World Of Warcraft didn't hook me either. I didn't see anything more than what Guild Wars offered for free.I will never pay a monthly fee for a game. Not when developers like Valve are releasing free updates constantly for their games.

Oh natch. Starcraft > roof over your head.

And there it is the bullshit reasonnings are back in strenght.

This stuff is too expansive for my taste but I'm used to getting everything I want so I'm going to pirate it...

I thought people on this site were becoming more mature, I was wrong...

Those bastards!