Why is the game being released in three versions?

I. IF each campaign is as large as they say it will be, I have no problem paying for 3 games. To those of you saying that they should give you three times more material for free, well, one can hardly blame Blizzard for missing your expectations. The important thing is that the MULTIPLAYER components will be there from the start. It isn't as if it will be Terran only matches on B.net until the other parts come out.

2. I truely believe that b.net 2.0 will be free. If not, I won't be playing, but I really doubt that any of us will have to make that choice.

3. Kotick is a dumbass for raising his prices while telling Sony to cut theirs. I think we can all agree on this. I wonder if he will claim partial credit for the upcoming price cuts. DUMBASS!

Because "Hopefully" it will have three very long single player campaigns that are worth it. It also gives them the ability to max out their profit on Starcraft 2 considering the other 2 chapters will have very small multiplayer additions outside of the new campaign.

This CEO guy is a jerk, but business wise he'll keep the company profitable with decisions like this. The Call of Duty price raise was ballsy but everyone is gonna buy the game anyways.

Teach him a lesson, and don't buy it.

No lan is the gayest thing i've ever heard. What about when there is no internet, and a bunch of ppl just want to lan? Has anyone asked a Blizzard developer that simple question? What if we are somewhere with no internet or shitty internet. Those places still exist in droves in the cities.

First, Blizzard is one of the best developers out there that hasn't released an inperfect game to date (except for the very first games they made before WC2)

Second, Blizzard acting this way is not Blizzard-like, especially if you, like me have read their philosophy.

The reasons behind Blizzard acting like this can only be because of one of the following reasons:

1: They have gone insane

2: They will make it all worth it, the sheer amount of content in each expansion will indeed be overwhelming, and when the huge games launches, it will make perfect sense.

3: Kotick is forcing them in order to milk the franchise.

Look behind you, a three-headed sony fanboy!

Well, I like Malstrom and his articles, but still theres no proof about this.

It is ofc his fault, maybe others at Activision as well. Blizzard would not have removed LAN nor would they have split Starcraft 2 into three seperate packs. Who knows what Activision have done with Battle.net.

Okay, okay. I believe in option 2. The question is if part 2 and 3 will be $45 full priced games though, or $25-$29 like expansions traditionally cost.

When you're dealing with a market that is mature and expansion becomes unlikely the key way to grow your company is to get more money from the same customers you have. For the past several years Activision and Blizzard have both been very successful at getting more money out of their customers, and they're just taking that same strategy to the next level with higher initial costs for anticipated games and getting people to pay several times for the content that would have previously been included in a released game.