Blizzard Dropped Over $100 Million On StarCraft II
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't care how you defend it. A single stand alone game simply isn't worth 200 dollars even if they are letting you make it in three easy payments. Hell the last game I pad 200 dollars for came with a fully functioning mech control panel. You can buy an entire console for that much anymore. And before you say it's three different games it's not. It's one game gimped to be sold in three parts. You honestly believe you will be able to play any semblance of multiplayer w/o all three parts? Don't kid yourself. An expansion I can deal with but this bullshit of charging 200 dollars for the completed game is simply offensive. This is a cash grab pure and simple and there is no way of justifying paying three times over for a single game.
Well, there's no doubt this game will make back that money in the first week. I'm just gonna call that now.
This is a game I'm willing to pay for despite Activision/Blizzard's crap in the past, since it's such a good game. Even though I'km torn, i can't say no.
Whoa, all of that is in the game? Well then, it makes this one campaign worth 60 bucks after all, especially since we can still play unhindered in online.
Thank you for the info.
This is a game I'm willing to pay for despite Activision/Blizzard's crap in the past, since it's such a good game. Even though I'km torn, i can't say no.
O_OGoGo_Boy said:
Whoa, all of that is in the game? Well then, it makes this one campaign worth 60 bucks after all, especially since we can still play unhindered in online.
Thank you for the info.
Why do people keep insisting on this point? Why? WHY? WHYYYYYY?Xanthious said:
We knew that the game was going to have expansions, all Blizzard games have, all blizzard did was saying that instead of 1 game and 2 expansions each with 3 campaigns, we would get one game and 2 expansions each with a triple sized campaign, and would take advantage of the more focused development to provide a different experience for each.
Heck, this can even save you money, a friend of mine has outright stated that since he has no interest in the Terran campaign, he won't get this one until the next expansion is out since the price is likely to have gone down by then. And if the expansions turn out to be standalone he might not even get it.
However what annoys me the most is how hypocritical the reaction feels. Many recent RTS cut significantly on the campaigns, and you never heard complains about them. Heck, Dawn of War had 4 races and one 10 level campaign for only one of them, it wasn't until the expansions that the other races got a campaign and they were shared campaigns at that. DoW2 has one expansion so far, likely to get several more, and there isn't even a hint that the other races will get a shot at a campaign.
SC2, by all accounts, is going to have an extremely developed and long campaign, miles better than whatever the competition has come up with so far. This kind of reaction wouldn't even happen if Blizzard had worded the expansions announcement differently.
Whatever Xanthious. Arguing with you is like keep bumping my head into a brick wall.
I don't even know how 60+50+50 equals 200 but in your little world. Fine. You're not willing to pay about 150-170$ for a Blizzard game with 2 add-ons. Your choice and perhaps the game sucks really bad and you won't feel like missing out something great.
Last comment towards you.
And yeah Xocrates I can't even imagine the hatred towards other developers if people complain this hard about Starcraft 2. Got the same thought about DoW2. Haven't seen one complaining about its Add-on that came out rather quickly and the fact there are most likely more to come.
I don't even know how 60+50+50 equals 200 but in your little world. Fine. You're not willing to pay about 150-170$ for a Blizzard game with 2 add-ons. Your choice and perhaps the game sucks really bad and you won't feel like missing out something great.
Last comment towards you.
And yeah Xocrates I can't even imagine the hatred towards other developers if people complain this hard about Starcraft 2. Got the same thought about DoW2. Haven't seen one complaining about its Add-on that came out rather quickly and the fact there are most likely more to come.
I can recall a decade ago when I saw the ads for SC2 at Gamestop, and back then I was excited about that prospect. Skip ahead to 2010, I'd have to say the heat has severely died down for me to the point where I'm not really sure I can about this game coming out. I've been able to see more about Diablo 3 than StarCraft, and I'm still somewhat excited about Diablo 3. I can imagine that the few details about SC that I remember will probably either be very different or gone by now, and they will probably release a box set once all three games finally come out, so I wouldn't rush out and buy each "episode" as they were released anyhow.
This game was starting to approach Duke Nukem-like release dates, so I hope it lives up to everyone else's expectations. I'll remain cautiously optomistic from the sidelines. Thanks anyway Blizzard. Here's to hoping we don't have to wait another two years to see Diablo 3 hit the market, or another five years to see the end of StarCraft 2 on the market.
This game was starting to approach Duke Nukem-like release dates, so I hope it lives up to everyone else's expectations. I'll remain cautiously optomistic from the sidelines. Thanks anyway Blizzard. Here's to hoping we don't have to wait another two years to see Diablo 3 hit the market, or another five years to see the end of StarCraft 2 on the market.
Meh people said WC3 was great but the AI was crap leaving the game watered down............John Funk said:You're joking, right?Rakkana said:I mean the price and the mucked around release date.JerrytheBullfrog said:Pull this crap?Rakkana said:
...spending lots of money and time on a game until it's great? That's kind of their schtick you know.
Or did you mean the $60 price (which was also for WC3 and Diablo 2) and expansions (which every Blizzard game has had)?
SC1 is a great game to play tho
I've also heard their releasing each character class in a different expansion pack. So we have to may extra for full content. Don't know if it's true or not but my previous reasons are enough for me to be pissed.
Also you don't know if it's great yet. All we have is a few game play videos.
And yes, SC2 is great.True. I wish they'd spent more on B.net 2.0 though. Kinda a mess right now.uppitycracker said:well i'm sure a LOT of this had to do with redesigning battle.net, as well as creating a lot of structure for the multiplayer and the overall engine. i'd think that hte expansions, sitting on existing architecture, should be significantly cheaper to produce.John Funk said:So that's what, $10m per year?
I'd really be curious to see the breakdown of expenses here, to get a feeling for how much it'll cost them to make the expansions. Obviously they have the core engine and units and the like, but they still need to do CGI (mmmm, Blizzard CGI), voice-overs, new animations, etc.
Hopefully they'll clean it up within a month or two of release. I know that having it right away would have been what should have happened, but at least they're addressing our concerns and working on them.John Funk said:
Also, the campaign will probably keep be busy until that patch comes out.
Is it right to include advertising and promotion as part of development costs?
I smell activision meddling again, why advertise on the side of 747s of all thing?!? Makes me think they spent money on far more frivolous advertising. Maybe I am being idealistic but surely if the game is good from such a popular franchise and proven developer... why blow so much on marketing?
I smell activision meddling again, why advertise on the side of 747s of all thing?!? Makes me think they spent money on far more frivolous advertising. Maybe I am being idealistic but surely if the game is good from such a popular franchise and proven developer... why blow so much on marketing?
The only reason I would buy all three games is if they actually add new things to the online play with each new game. If online play stays the same, I am not going to spend 60 dollars on a game when nothing is added to the only part of the game that is important. RTS's are always about facing off against other people.
I don't think it'll be that big of a deal to them in the long run, they just have to postpone wallpapering the den with WOW money, which is probably the last room in the house. I like the "ready when it's ready" approach; it beats having it half done and disappointing the fans who have been waiting so long.
(Ordered me to type... HUH? I was CRITICISING Kotick, why would he order me to criticise him?)GoGo_Boy said:
(Same for me? WHAT! Huh?)
Well I'd like to say in my defence that I DO think it is EXTREMELY important to get people to know about your product or service to be successful... but the type of advertising like plastering on the side of a 747, that is wasteful and people just phases that stuff out.
Basically I object to marketing that is blunt, frivolous and overly expensive.
I'd be FAR more impressed if they unveiled a CLEVER advertising campaign rather than a brute force tens-of-millions-of-dollars campaign. I mean 99% of the people who see a 747 with that ad on the side likely wouldn't give a damn, but what about more targeted advertising.
I HAET having to sit through ads that have ZERO APPEAL to me at all, I'm willing to accept cookies that track me and my profile as long as I don't have to sit through another 30-second tampon advert to watch TV shows online. I now that's not the MOST relevant analogy for certain game's exorbitant ad campaigns but you get my drift right?