Activison ruins Starcraft II

[Statharas]

We can all agree that Activision ruined Starcraft II. If Blizzard was left alone, they could have made the best game for the next 10 years.

Activision ruined it.

October 10, 2008: Blizzard decides that StarCraft II shall become a Trilogy, with its 3 parts “Wings of Liberty”, “Heart of the Swarm” and “Legacy of the Void” being sold separately: http://kotaku.com/5061980/starcraft-ii-single-player-is-a-trilogy

For the people that don't know it yet, the 3 parts will function similar to WarCraft 3/TFT and StarCraft/Brood War for the multiplayer part e.g. they add new units and buildings and split the community between people owning them or not: http://eu.starcraft2.com/faq.xml

March 06, 2008: Even before the actual deal was finally approved by every party involved, Kotick started dreaming aloud of what could be done with StarCraft 2 and the new Battle.Net: http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/51641

Activision CEO Robert Kotick has briefly mentioned his company's plans for maximizing profit from Blizzard's upcoming PC strategy sequel StarCraft II.

"On the Blizzard side, [we need to] really be figuring out things like the StarCraft business model for the future, with in-game advertising and sponsorship, [which have] really not been something that has moved the dial for anybody in the videogame industry, but that we think presents tremendous opportunity for the future," said Kotick, according to Next-Gen.

"[Blizzard] has been thinking about how StarCraft, because it is a short-session experience, can actually be the model for in-game advertising and sponsorship and tournament play and ladder play for the future."

June 28, 2009: A few more details of the new Battle.Net 2.0 get out, for instance that StarCraft II and Diablo III will not offer a LAN-mode anymore (so everyone that wants to play with you, including friends and family HAS to buy a copy of the game and all Add-Ons and give Blizzard them $$) and that it might contain a few “monetized features” and micro transactions.

Clarification for the above statement: StarCraft I, WarCraft II and Diablo had a feature called "Spawn installation", with which you could legally install the same game with the same CD-Key on a friends or family members PC, with the restriction that the SinglePlayer couldn't be played from the "Spawn version" and they could only join Multiplayer games, you, with the Original CD-Key and Installation were in. While the feature wasn't there specifically for WarCraft III, LAN games with the same CD-Key were still possible, this helped people try out the game with friends and buy it if they liked it, I personally know of at least 3 sales by friends attributed to this feature.
The new version of B.Net 2.0 works in such a way, that even when living under the same roof and another person only wanting to try the game or play with you casually, they still have to own a full second copy of the game + all Add-On keys to be able to do this.

http://www.incgamers.com/Interviews/190/StarCraftIIDevelopersInterviewed

So what's Battle.net all about and how is it different?

The new Battle.net will completely revolutionise the current version, but Blizzard is still looking to making this experience free for anyone buying StarCraft II or future games that use Battle.net. One idea which has been discussed in different iterations is microtransactions, meaning the service is free, but added value services like starting a custom tournament, league, or the like would cost a small amount of money.

He mentioned WoW as an example, where "value added services" like server transfers are paid for, but "you can get the full experience of Battle.net with all the features just from buying the box."

/discuss

"All quotes have been taken from Here."

 

[PurplePoot]

Go away.

Trilogy: Clearly you have never heard of expansions.

Bnet quote: Doesn't actually say anything relevant.

Lack of spawn: I could really care less. Can you actually give any evidence that LANning with only one key was actually legal? Somehow I doubt it.

This is the next apple hating-style bullshit, it seems.

 

[Statharas]

The so called "Trilogy" is not good. Look at Warcraft. it had 4 campaigns in RoC and 3 in TfT (add the RPG as well and you got 4).
Now, Starcraft II will have only 1 campaign, and you have to BUY the other 2. Ridicilus isn't it?
Plus, Spawn is gonna be abused. A LOT.

 

[Kimbo]

Sigh*... From what I can assume, you are not getting 1/3 of a game ...

you are getting a full game :|...the campaign for Terrans is BIG.... It isnt an "extract" of the "entire sc2 trilogy" :|...

wc3 had 4 SMALL campaigns :|...

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

I say no because even though I mentioned my issues with bnet 2.0 that doesnt mean Activision did it. It is all Blizzard's idea thinking the new completely different bnet will be so enjoyable. It's Blizzard.

Please, let's not start about Mac users, it's true:
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25399742594&sid=3000

 

[Agarwa3n]

About the Bnet 2.0 issue, it's been discoussed a bazilion of times. There is much room for improvement and I rly hope they will improve it with the given user feedback. I still have my best hopes on the sc2 campaign. By all the interviews I've read, developers are thrilled about what they are going to release and I dont think we will be disappointed on the campaign part at least. I believe it will still be epic, so lets not rain sh*t on it just yet.

 

[HappyHero]

They already mentioned guest passes somewhere in the official forums.

Like you can do in WoW now, you can just give your friends a guest pass. They can download the game, play it for some hours or days (obviously with some restrictions).

Therefore the spawn installations are no matter (and I don't think they were legal as the terms of use usually only allow a single installation on a single computer).

I can understand most of blizzards "business decisions". They aim to make money and already give you a lot for what you pay them for.

 

[Tleno]

Actually Activision are money milkers, just like EA or other big companies, that's nothing new you know...

 

[Trillium]

I'm pretty sure "Activision Blizzard" is just a name and both companies mind their own business separately. Why wouldn't Blizz want to make money themselves? They are a business company after all, first and foremost. The fact they make genious game comes only second.

Three expansions are a good idea. I love anticipating upcoming changes, new content, models and spells, etc. No problem here.

Lack of LAN is what troubles me, 'cos while it might've been illegal, nothing is a crime while law-worms don't know =)
Same problem with the game being bound to b.net now, for the same reason.

 

[mrzwach]

We can all agree that Activision ruined Starcraft II. If Blizzard was left alone, they could have made the best game for the next 10 years.

Activision ruined it.

First off: It is entirely your own opinion that Starcraft II has been ruined.

Also, rather annoying for people to be whining about the trilogy thing when they don't know how much will be added in each expansion pack.

As for LAN, the only thing it stops you from doing is playing with other people who don't have a CD key. I suppose if your internet was extremely limited it could be a problem, but really, now that CD keys are not longer linked to computers and rather to accounts, its much easier to play with friends IRL.

On the topic of microtransactions, I really don't get why people whine about these. Basically, Bnet can be just as good as it is now without paying extra, or you can pay money for additional services and the like. But meh.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

I really don't get why people whine about these.

That's the problem with you

or you can pay money for additional services and the like. But meh.

Ye right, paying for something that should ve been there in the first place. Anyway, I think I should really share things with people that understand me and I know who do, talking here any more about these issues here in THW is more than useless, just talking to stones.

 

[real138]

Terran if were all stones then why the f*ck have you not left yet? please leave us poor "stones" alone.

I don't believe they ruined it. so my vote is no.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

Left? I'm here from 2005 who are you to tell me if I will leave or not?? I never said i want to leave, you are stones about bnet 2.0.

Just learn your lesson kids, I can show you endless number of threads about the same I speak and you - nothing, so im the whiner lal
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25399602713&sid=3000

I stop commenting THIS topic here or another thread as of now, cause there are people who understand it cause you seemingly are the view of casual cluelss guys.

That means I wont be replying here or the other similar threads, whatever you post further, post your crap, my points are those of thousands, believe yourself, live in a lie. ... GG to your comments

 

[redmarine]

 

[Grey Nightmare]

I don't know or care about the finer workings of Activision or Blizzard, both are companies, both want money - don't we all? Yes it seems evil, but we'd probably do exactly the same in their position so who are we to judge? Oh and by the way the above post is just ridiculous, your really acting no better than he is, even if he is "trolling".

 

[Statharas]

Well, all of this might be true. Yet, since "AB" was created, Blizzard started to crumble, bit by bit.

 

[PurplePoot]

The so called "Trilogy" is not good. Look at Warcraft. it had 4 campaigns in RoC and 3 in TfT (add the RPG as well and you got 4).
Now, Starcraft II will have only 1 campaign, and you have to BUY the other 2. Ridicilus isn't it?
Plus, Spawn is gonna be abused. A LOT.

You're an idiot, that is all.

Giant redmarine stuff

 

[Statharas]

You're a troll as well though. You type uneducated opinions and you don't even mention why.

 

[PurplePoot]

No, you see, the thing is that this has been explained about a trillion times, and your inability to actually research what you're saying before you say it means that you don't deserve an explanation.

 

[Mechanical Man]

Go away.

Trilogy: Clearly you have never heard of expansions.

This way they are doing is somehow biased against some races. A big campaign just for one race is not favourable for the race which is featured in first game. In later expansions, it's natural that the game will get some upgrades, like new units, some new mechanics, balance and such stuff. Since the first race already had its campaign, you won't benefit new nice stuff that comes in the expansion in the campaign. You may not care, but for me is very important, if my favourite race is not represented enough. (yes, I disliked TFT campaigns)

Announcing that the game will be trilogy it's quite lame, since it ruins surprise factor. Why they don't just tell the story now then? Dawn of war had crapload of expansions, but Relic wasn't announcing anything, so you were actually quite happy about it. Also in later expansions they featured that risk like campaign which featured all races, so no other one would be less represented than other (they were not fantastic, but still). It's also true that in 3rd expansion they were kinda running out of ideas to make it better, but whatever

 

[PurplePoot]

You will already be getting a lot of units which are not featured in multiplayer. I for one welcome one large, consistent storyline per race.

 

[Statharas]

Agreed with Mech. Blizzard started to ruin the element of surprise. They could have just kept the campaigns a secret. Only to mention that there will be campaigns added on each expansion. Like TFT had.

I doubt Blizz will include the old good easter eggs. Just like Diablo II's "Cow level", Sc1's cheat code "There is no cow level", and Wc3's Sheep level (I think it was in the TD, not sure though).

 

[cnhirt]

Agreed with Mech. Blizzard started to ruin the element of surprise. They could have just kept the campaigns a secret. Only to mention that there will be campaigns added on each expansion. Like TFT had.

I doubt Blizz will include the old good easter eggs. Just like Diablo II's "Cow level", Sc1's cheat code "There is no cow level", and Wc3's Sheep level (I think it was in the TD, not sure though).

This is just whining for the sake of whining.
With the way Blizzard is treating the story (three huge campaigns in a row with each iteration of the game focusing on a single race), I see no way to keep the trilogy a surprise. Think about it: Blizzard reveals Starcraft 2, then details are released and we discover that the game will only be about the Terrans.
This obviously means there'll be a trilogy.
I'm quite excited for the expansions and I don't see what you're complaining about.

As to your second point: You "doubt" that they'll include easter eggs. Okay. How about you form your opinion once you've bought the game and once the easter eggs (or lack thereof) will be apparent. Basing your opinion of something on your own negative projections of the future is completely ridiculous.

 

[redmarine]

He's been stuck in that phase since 2007 while pretty much everyone else has moved on.

 

[HINDYhat]

Announcing that the game will be trilogy it's quite lame, since it ruins surprise factor. Why they don't just tell the story now then?

Oh, the fact that there are three parts to the campaign clearly reveals far too much about the storyline.

Honestly? I don't even know what to say. I mean, if you start reading a book and I tell you that there are 45 chapters in the book, would you start crying and slap me because I ruined the story?

It's also true that in 3rd expansion they were kinda running out of ideas to make it better, but whatever

Presumably, because these expansions are pre-announced, Blizzard knows roughly what story will be told and what content will be added in each.

I doubt Blizz will include the old good easter eggs. Just like Diablo II's "Cow level", Sc1's cheat code "There is no cow level", and Wc3's Sheep level (I think it was in the TD, not sure though).

That's some very good reasoning and a great reason not to buy the game.

 

[Dr Super Good]

This thread fell appart with spam and nonsense thus it has been closed.

The campaign we are getting might only be single, but it is longer and more complex than all 4 campaigns in WC3 RoC or TFT. There is something like 20 missions to do, with various difficulties to choose from, and some of them are altered by the sequence run it to provide replayability for multiple times.

I would also like to remind you that they are companies. If you want projects made without any intent of profit, look at games like teeworlds and other open source free games.

If the game provides as much interntainment as WC3, I would happily pay for 2 expansions that are slightly more expensive. 3 games for 4-5 years of fun? Seems pretty good a deal to me.