By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Starcraft II campaign split into 3 separate SKU's!

vlad321 on 11 October 2008
Ail said:
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...

 

This has the potential of being even more bullshit than the EA DRM crap. And yes, People are used to getting good games for cheap, so when bullshit like this happens people don't want to support bullshit behavior. Therefore they pirate it. Notice that Fallout 3 won't have the same shit DRM Spore had.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Around the Network
Vertigo-X on 11 October 2008

Meh, I would buy SC2 at $150. This doesn't bother me at all. =)



The BuShA owns all!

TheRealMafoo on 11 October 2008

Also, how about Guild Wars? The campaigns, all full price, all the same game.

Same kind of deal.



steven787 on 11 October 2008

Activision ftw...

It's like the opposite of my other favorite PC developer Valve who gives you value for your money.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

shio on 11 October 2008
BenKenobi88 said:
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.

How would more than $50 be a mistake? 2 of the campaigns will be in expansions, just like many PC games do, and each campaign will be bigger than all of SC1's campaigns combined.

 



http://i48.tinypic.com/120qaon.jpg
Around the Network
shio on 11 October 2008
Noolsey said:
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.

And Relic did it right with Company of Heroes, because people with only the original CoH could still play with people with the expansion.

Imo, if there is one developer that can release expansions with new units but keep it balanced it's Blizzard. Ideally, the extra units would offer more strategic paths to a player but the units themselves aren't overpowered so that they won't stand out.

 



http://i48.tinypic.com/120qaon.jpg
vlad321 on 11 October 2008
shio said:
BenKenobi88 said:
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.

How would more than $50 be a mistake? 2 of the campaigns will be in expansions, just like many PC games do, and each campaign will be bigger than all of SC1's campaigns combined.

 

Considering that the original game you only have a Terrain campaign, it is utterly unfinished. Without a Zerg/Protoss camapign it is not a complete game. Doesn't matter how big they are, it is not a complete Starcraft experience.

 



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

shio on 11 October 2008
Ail said:
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...

Someone should ban him. Condoning piracy is not good. And to think you're questioning other people's maturity.

vlad321 said:
Ail said:
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...

 

This has the potential of being even more bullshit than the EA DRM crap. And yes, People are used to getting good games for cheap, so when bullshit like this happens people don't want to support bullshit behavior. Therefore they pirate it. Notice that Fallout 3 won't have the same shit DRM Spore had.

In what way is it bullshit? You are getting in SC2 a campaign bigger than all 3 SC1's combined.

And another thing, Blizzard only had to choices: either shorten their campaigns alot so they could fit all 3 in SC2, or delay the game for atleast another year.

By the way, also keep in mind that even if Blizzard had decided to fit all 3 campaigns in SC2, they will still release atleast 1 expansion for the game after.



http://i48.tinypic.com/120qaon.jpg
SamuelRSmith on 11 October 2008

And SKUs are getting seperated into two different SKU's



shio on 11 October 2008
vlad321 said:
shio said:
BenKenobi88 said:
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.

How would more than $50 be a mistake? 2 of the campaigns will be in expansions, just like many PC games do, and each campaign will be bigger than all of SC1's campaigns combined.

 

Considering that the original game you only have a Terrain campaign, it is utterly unfinished. Without a Zerg/Protoss camapign it is not a complete game. Doesn't matter how big they are, it is not a complete Starcraft experience.

 

Funny you say that because if I remember correctly Starcraft 1's story was left on a cliff hanger! It was definitely not finished. And even though it has only a Terran campaign, that campaign alone will probably be bigger than all SC1 campaigns combined!

 



http://i48.tinypic.com/120qaon.jpg