Blizzard Dropped Over $100 Million On StarCraft II

[Lucifer dern]

i never played starcraft so all this stuff kinda went over my head
but now i hear there willing to spend that kinda money on it...
im now interested hell i cant w8!
normaly i wouldnt let a little thing like how much a company blew on it but...
i mean...thats alot...and they made diablo 2... so they clearly know what there doing
this could be a better example of "showing what is possible" then crysis...

 

[John Funk]

I remember back when the first game to spend over a million dollars was Wing Commander II or some such, one of Origin's games. Sigh, I remember Origin and loved them, and whatever the guy currently occupying Lord British's body did with him, I'd really like him back.

Anyway, $100 million doesn't surprise me, considering what they spend of some really godawful movies these days. I'm curious as to what they've spent on World of Warcraft so far, for that matter. It's got to be more than that.

IIRC it's something on the level of $200m every year on hardware upkeep/maintenance alone.

 

[OmegaXzors]

i'm sure the nation of korea will singlehandedly make that entire amount back on day 1.


but regardless of korea, it certainly justifies that 60 dollar pricetag, i'd think.

So racist against my kind, you bunch are. I am half south Korean.

I've had this game pre-ordered since April for the Collector's Edition. Bring it on!

 

[Reyalsfeihc]

$100 Million to develop, and it still only comes with one campaign?

For a while, I was concerned that this was going to be the game that I would break my Activision Boycott for. After I heard about 'premium' map packs and the campaigns getting split into three games, I realized that nothing, not even Starcraft, was safe from Bobby Kotick.

First of all, Bobby Kotick has no control over Blizzard as stated in the merger agreement.
Second, There's been no news about "premium maps" because Blizzard has never done map packs since when you join a game you download any map you don't have automatically.
And Finally, It's being split into three campaigns because this game is supposed to have A LOT MORE than 20+ hours of campaign ALONE!

$60 is nothing to pay for what you get with SC2.

 

[SnwMan]

I couldn't agree more Reyalsfeihc, Kotick has no control over blizzard. What they do, what they charge, is all up to them, and personally, i like that they are splitting into 3 campaigns, it increases the amount of campaign there is, which in my mind is a good thing, based on what i have seen on the campaign(ill get back to you next month when it actually comes out lol). And 60 dollars is indeed nothing to pay (100 here in australia) considering we are getting the galaxy editor aswell, which means we can have many many more games, just from that.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Blizzard is getting wealthy in a hurry!

Probably never going to quit with the WoW series either. I'll check out StarCraft II. I never played the original and I'm into RTS games anyway.

Suggesting the Starcraft's quality has anything to do with its budget is what's wrong with gaming and Blizzard in particular... -_-

EDIT: All this love for Arthas' betrayal, have you all forgotten the far, FAR more memorable Inauguration?

Spoiler: snip

That was beautiful...

I kind of find it funny that the future Human Race is always ruled by a predominately "American" culture...

I wonder why that is

 

[SnwMan]

I see your point, however i still maintain that blizzard has its own autonamy.

 

[MetalGenocide]

Assuming the number is even real, that's probably 70% advertisements/actor casting/unnecessary things that I can't remember now, and only 30% actual technical effort.

 

[Zing]

Hmm Seven pillars, I'm trying to work out what they are...

WoW
SCII
CoD
Guitar Hero
Diablo 3(?)

That's all I got...maybe Tony Hawk and DJ Hero.

 

[John Funk]

Oh yes, as always, blame it on Kotick.

Kotick has no control over blizzard.

First of all, Bobby Kotick has no control over Blizzard as stated in the merger agreement.

Incoming TOLD in T-minus 3... 2... 1...

[a href="http://www.activisionblizzard.com/corp/ml/aboutUs/boardOfDirectors.html"]TOLD![/a]

Robert A. Kotick
Director; President and Chief Executive Officer of Activision Blizzard.

There you have it. Right from the mouth of the demon himself.

Or, since it seems that none of you even read the news article...

Activision-Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick has described StarCraft II as one of the company's seven "pillars of opportunity," which could each provide more than $500 million and up to even $1 billion in profit over the total product life span. With millions of copies expected to sell this year alone at $60 a pop, StarCraft II could be in the black before we celebrate 2011.

You guys make this too easy.

Second, There's been no news about "premium maps" because Blizzard has never done map packs since when you join a game you download any map you don't have automatically.

Commander! A swarm of TOLD has appeared on our RADAR! It's about to hit us!

[a href="http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3175717"]1UP: StarCraft II Will Support Premium Maps[/a]
[a href="http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/60148"]ShackNews: StarCraft 2 to Support Priced Maps, Mods[/a]
[a href="http://kotaku.com/5343006/blizzard-you-may-sell-your-starcraft-2-maps-on-battlenet-eventually"]KotakuBlizzard: You May Sell Your StarCraft 2 Maps On Battle.net, Eventually[/a]

So there you have it. How about you try just a little harder next time... ok?

Yes, I suggest you read more closely "designers will be able to set their own price tags." (1UP) The designers are selling the maps, not Blizzard (though they undoubtedly get a cut). It's App Store/Steam, not Stimulus Package.

Bobby Kotick is the president of Activision-Blizzard, which is the renamed Vivendi Games (which included Blizzard) after Vivendi bought a controlling share in Activision. Blizzard retains a strong policy of autonomy from everyone I've talked to on both sides of the ATVI and Blizzard fences.

Which means of course that blaming Activision for Blizzard's screwups is mindbogglingly ignorant. Lay the blame for, say, BNet2.0 being subpar at Blizzard's feet where the blame deserves instead of just pointing at Bobby Kotick. Autonomy works both ways, y'know.

 

[GoGo_Boy]

I see your point, however i still maintain that blizzard has its own autonamy.

Couple what the guy above you said with this [http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=127066], this [http://www.the-ghetto.org/content/battle-net-2-0-the-antithesis-of-consumer-confidence], this [http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128252], and the fact that they even considered mandatory Real ID for their forums, and I think you will find that either their average IQ has dropped by about 30 points, or that they suddenly started sharing the money grubbing need of Kotick, Thomas Tippl or whoever else there is above them.

What in hells name has Real ID to do with Activision / Kotick?
Fortunately I can direct you to the post above yours.

Jesus frigging Christ. Real ID has quite a lot good things going even though it has just as much if not more flaws. But WHY can't Blizzard decide to do it? Why must it be Kotick and Activision? Why do you focus on it so hard man? Ahh right, you're going with the mainstream mob mentioning Kotick and Activision in every single Blizzard thread that exist.
Damn it. Do some researches before you hate.

 

[Xanthious]

I was totally on board with StarCraft 2 right up to the point I heard they were breaking it up into 3 games. Sorry Blizzard BIG dick move there. I detest this even more than I detest development houses that gimp their core product so they can provide "bonus" DLC at a future time. Mike Morhaime can come lick the crust out of my ass crack before I pay 60 dollars for a third of a game.

 

[GoGo_Boy]

Well you don't deserve to play this anyways.
It's a game with two add-ons that were pre-announced in preparation of the campaign. But you can just lick some crust out of asses until you check your sources.
The more I think about it the clearer it gets. There's no need to flame haters like you as the biggest punishment is not playing this game anyways.
I mean I argue mostly for those fellow commentary readers to build up their own opinion. And unless they're stupid they'll be able to filter good posts from... posts alike yours.

 

[dommyuk]

I don't understand why people complain about splitting the game into three parts, while by that logic, they split the first game into two.

 

[Hoplon]

I would day that amount includes the marketing and all the infrastructure for the new Battle net.

the game was probably half that.

 

[Nazulu]

Well you don't deserve to play this anyways.
It's a game with two add-ons that were pre-announced in preparation of the campaign. But you can just lick some crust out of asses until you check your sources.
The more I think about it the clearer it gets. There's no need to flame haters like you as the biggest punishment is not playing this game anyways.
I mean I argue mostly for those fellow commentary readers to build up their own opinion. And unless they're stupid they'll be able to filter good posts from... posts alike yours.

Your think your post is good? Just carrying on about someone who has decided not to buy the game because BlActivision have already set it up as 3 fucking seperate games. They have 10 times more $$$ than ever before and they have to pull this?

You can call it hating but I personally don't agree with this method either. When Starcraft and the Warcraft games were released you could play all 3 factions in the campaign, and it worked really well. This move forces you to buy the other expansions to play all 3 (in campaign and story). This actually wasn't a deal breaker to me but I still don't like it.

 

[tehroc]

Don't think that they wont try to incentivize you purchasing the other campaigns. Expect to own all 3 campaign in order to properly play in multiplayer 100%. As it stands right now, suppossedly youll only need one campaign to play multiplayer, then why would I want to purchase the other campaigns when all most people really care about is the multiplayer? Yeah, that question doesn't fit into the new Blizz mindset (where greed rules over game). No this would not sit well with the accountants.

 

[ogrebushi]

I -almost- feel the need to hand in my gamer card ... cause well i just dont give a crap about sc2. I rolled my eyes at the "Oh boy lets buy it 3 times thing" , im willing to accept (mostly) the more content arguement. I think my primary interest was in seeing the new units and whatnot, but since i got accepted into the beta i was able to fullfil that by hopping on and playing all the factions against the computer, since well ive never enjoyed the "OMG this is a sport!1!!1!!!1!!!" multiplayer aspect that seems to be starcraft zerg rush cheeseball tactics and all. If im lucky the "expansions" will be out sooner then later and they'll have a battlechest and then that will be on sale. I can see myself buying it then. Until then ill wait to dismember zombies that looks more amusing.

 

[GoGo_Boy]

(pointed at Nazalu)

Dude the only frigging issue you have is not playing all 3 races during the campaign which is so WAYNE.
Playing 3 short campaign walkthroughs as each race has no advantage man. No advantage apart from being able to say "I played as all 3 races". They else had to cut down a lot elements especially regarding the story and lore. They said so in an interview and it's common sense.
Want an example? Yes?
Blizzard implanted a global tech update system for the campaign that allows you to research tech trees that are then permanent. Now there's little to no point in doing this 3 times for only 9-10 missions per race. I mean the part is over after 10 missions anyways and the upgrades of course can't switch over to other races.
And then the story. As you know there are about 29-30 missions in SC2 each with filled with lore and story. They would've cut a lot of it.
The whole recruiting mercs, the Hyperion as a base etc. would've been way too much work if it had to be done for all 3 races in this one game.

Every mission will be different anyways. Why would you want to play Zerg and Toss in the campaign so hardly? It's not like multiplayer cuts it out.

And Mike M. said expansions where pretty much set up from the beginning of developing SC2: Wings of Liberty. Every Blizzard game has Add-ons and they were all worth it's price. Everyone would've expected Add-ons for future titles anyways (Diablo 3 will get those too, trust me).
So now instead of making this 3*10missions, lack in lore, story and gameplay mechanics campaign they give you 3 epic ones.

Please don't tell me the game won't be worth it's money lmao. Even the cinematics and world editor alone are worth more than most full price titles out there.

Tell me what games YOU play. You must have some very, very high demands man.

And last but not least some videos to give some visual proves.
Will edit them in.
youtube-tags don't work for newer members?
Well you get some links then.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcKvrEgSlhY
Here an in-engine cut scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AJz7Oiluj4&feature=related
Here the NBA advertisement showing the fully pre-rendered cinematic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP1-c5yXGnE
And here a video from Blizzcon 2008 regarding gameplay and campaign
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9JOKhoI9nY


Last but not least I'd like to know which strategy game is on-par with this? Right, none even remotely.