Starcraft 2: Will you pay full price for 1/3 of a game?

[Iwata]

Well, I just feel sad that seemingly such a huge part of the community is so blinded by new shininess not to admit that Blizzard is just being greedy. No wonder Darth Kotick says games should be more expensive...

Edit: Also, evryone calm the fuck down.

 

[noogai18]

There are somewhere in the range of 30 missions, and it's fairly non-linear, so the replay value is incredibly high. Plus, the online has all three races.

You're a fool to not buy SC2.

 

[TrogzTheTroll]

But its like, going to a resturant... and usualy it might cost like 20$. But at THIS resturaunt... they use the best ingrediants, and the dish is about 3x bigger than usual dishes. It SHOULD cost more.

I think an even more apt metaphor would be in the grocery store. The person who doesn't like the new way Starcraft is being distributed wants Oranges. So he goes in and finds a 5 pound bag of oranges for 5 bucks. This he is fine with. Then, he sees a 20 pound bag of the same oranges right next to it for $15. The person then immediately gets angry, ranting about how the produce people would insult them by offering a bag of Oranges for $15 instead of the normal $5.

No. You get more Oranges if you spend more money. They have to pick more oranges, you have to pay more to get them. That's the way buying stuff works.

How about this methaphor instead:

You can pick 60 oranges in one hour - averaging at exactly one per minute.

You have two choices in how you could sell your oranges:

One big pack, all 60, for 20$ ~ Or you could sell them in bags of 20 for 10$ a piece.

In essence you've spent the same amount of time picking oranges - it's just that selling them separately nets you more money.

In other words, your methaphor is shit.

Except an average bag of oranges is 60 oranges, while Blizzard picked 180 oranges... and decided to split them up into 3 different bags and sell them, with the last two costing less.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

No, I'm paying full price for a full game that happens to be the first third of a story. You know, like Mass Effect, only with awesome multiplayer that will give you probably hundreds of hours of entertainment beyond the main 20-30 hour campaign for free.

Did you yell at Peter Jackson for making you pay full price for 1/3 of a movie? What's that? You didn't?

Thank you John, that about sums up my feelings on the issue. Although I probably won't be able to spare the money for Starcraft II.

 

[GiglameshSoulEater]

nerds have tons of money from their geek squad jobs so i would count on them buying all 94 60$ games for each unit they will make forever,how bout you just pick a new hobby like being handsome or funny so girls will be attracted to you?

Because hobbies change personality and genetics. What was it...
Oh, yeah. 'Obvious Troll is Obvious.'

 

[Mr. In-between]

No, I won't be buying Starcraft 2 because I don't play online games anymore. I stopped playing online when I stopped playing Starcraft.

 

[Erick.S]

I loved all the replies from the herd. Judging by them it was a poor decision by Activision not to divide the game into twenty, or thiry parts - one per each unit.
Then you'd see people saying stuff like "finally the dragoon equivalent is getting its own repetitive, mind-numbingly boring, poorly written campaign, just so we can say goodbye to 80$ (since 60 went so well)".

Starcraft was a great *game*. I even played it 10 years after it came out, but the campaign, and its plot, were worse than getting a vasectomy. Will I pay good money to play a greedy upgrade? Not very likely.

 

[TrogzTheTroll]

But its like, going to a resturant... and usualy it might cost like 20$. But at THIS resturaunt... they use the best ingrediants, and the dish is about 3x bigger than usual dishes. It SHOULD cost more.

I think an even more apt metaphor would be in the grocery store. The person who doesn't like the new way Starcraft is being distributed wants Oranges. So he goes in and finds a 5 pound bag of oranges for 5 bucks. This he is fine with. Then, he sees a 20 pound bag of the same oranges right next to it for $15. The person then immediately gets angry, ranting about how the produce people would insult them by offering a bag of Oranges for $15 instead of the normal $5.

No. You get more Oranges if you spend more money. They have to pick more oranges, you have to pay more to get them. That's the way buying stuff works.

How about this methaphor instead:

You can pick 60 oranges in one hour - averaging at exactly one per minute.

You have two choices in how you could sell your oranges:

One big pack, all 60, for 20$ ~ Or you could sell them in bags of 20 for 10$ a piece.

In essence you've spent the same amount of time picking oranges - it's just that selling them separately nets you more money.

In other words, your methaphor is shit.

Except an average bag of oranges is 60 oranges, while Blizzard picked 180 oranges... and decided to split them up into 3 different bags and sell them, with the last two costing less.

I'm just going to stop dignifying your bursts of sudden, immediate diarrhea of the fingers with any kind of response from now on. Sorry to have wasted my time arguing ethics with someone so incredibly stuck up their own arse to recognise I'm not talking about whether or not companies want to make money, but whether or not I will(I, you know, is personal. This is my opinion. I was trying to argue opinion, like the thread is about, on whether or not doing this is fair, not if it's clever or sound marketing) endorse it by throwing my money at it.

I will just, and sorry for including you in my post to this devout trollfanboy, Iwata, direct you at this post, since it sums up my general opinion towards our non-cussion, at this point:

Well, I just feel sad that seemingly such a huge part of the community is so blinded by new shininess not to admit that Blizzard is just being greedy. No wonder Darth Kotick says games should be more expensive...

Edit: Also, evryone calm the fuck down.

Umad?
Edit: Regret my name, since its the WoW troll :3 ~

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Wait a minute, do you like half life?

Because they did the same damn thing!

 

[Xanadu84]

But its like, going to a resturant... and usualy it might cost like 20$. But at THIS resturaunt... they use the best ingrediants, and the dish is about 3x bigger than usual dishes. It SHOULD cost more.

I think an even more apt metaphor would be in the grocery store. The person who doesn't like the new way Starcraft is being distributed wants Oranges. So he goes in and finds a 5 pound bag of oranges for 5 bucks. This he is fine with. Then, he sees a 20 pound bag of the same oranges right next to it for $15. The person then immediately gets angry, ranting about how the produce people would insult them by offering a bag of Oranges for $15 instead of the normal $5.

No. You get more Oranges if you spend more money. They have to pick more oranges, you have to pay more to get them. That's the way buying stuff works.

How about this metaphor instead:

You can pick 60 oranges in one hour - averaging at exactly one per minute.

You have two choices in how you could sell your oranges:

One big pack, all 60, for 20$ ~ Or you could sell them in bags of 20 for 10$ a piece.

In essence you've spent the same amount of time picking oranges - it's just that selling them separately nets you more money.

In other words, your metaphor is shit.

Way to approach it like an asshole.

Metaphors are never perfect. The point is that expecting someone to charge the same for 3 times the stuff is downright silly, and I think your being purposefully obtuse here.

Also, that is, in fact, the way that things are sold. Like, in the actual economy. Cheaper in bulk gives incentive to buy more.

And finally, buy any single game, and you get the complete multiplayer experience. Meaning that you get the most bang for your buck on the smaller purchase, making your metaphor nonsense.

 

[PopperThingi]

I think that a full length campaign*, almost full online play (no LAN...) and skirmish is a full game, not a third. I will probably not get the expansions, though. Maybe if they have it on a Steam sale a long time from now.

*This is obviously based on the fact that it will in fact be a full length campaign, like 20 hours at least. And that I could get a demo first, since I wasn't gaming around Starcraft and I don't know what the gameplay is.

 

[jason27131]

some people are idiots. When sc1 came out, it sold for 60$ or so amount of dollars, and every jumped to buy it.

SC2 is split into 3 different games, each game is AS LONG AS THE ORIGINAL GAME IF NOT LONGER, sold for 60/40/40, and people ***** about it.

 

[s0denone]

Way to approach it like an asshole.

Metaphors are never perfect. The point is that expecting someone to charge the same for 3 times the stuff is downright silly, and I think your being purposefully obtuse here.

Also, that is, in fact, the way that things are sold. Like, in the actual economy. Cheaper in bulk gives incentive to buy more.

And finally, buy any single game, and you get the complete multiplayer experience. Meaning that you get the most bang for your buck on the smaller purchase, making your metaphor nonsense.

Oh dear lord we have a winner.

Look at the bolded statement.

Look at it again.

Now tell me if Blizzard aren't doing the exact opposite.

 

[Deofuta]

LOL @ uninformed people thinking they are making an informed choice on a product they obviously know nothing about.

Fact: WOL has 30 missions, the same as SC1.

Fact: The next two EXPANSIONS will each have 30 missions as well.

Fact: The next two EXPANSIONS have been said to be released as EXPANSIONS, with a marked down price compared to the first title.

Get over your uninformed opinions that add nothing to a discussion.

 

[Tharwen]

nerds have tons of money from their geek squad jobs so i would count on them buying all 94 60$ games for each unit they will make forever,how bout you just pick a new hobby like being handsome or funny so girls will be attracted to you?

So... after almost 2 years, you log in again just to make that statement?

...

Why?

 

[jason27131]

agreed deo.

 

[Thedutchjelle]

Pre-ordered the Collectors Edition a week ago.

Ok, it's expensive, and it lacks some features. However, I do not consider myself poor at this moment and I felt it's not wrong to spend money on something I think I'll like a lot.

EDIT: Oh by the way, I'm pretty sure that in an interview they stated they're looking into seperating the multiplayer lobbies of the expansions (kinda like how they did it for SC:BW), so you'll be forced to buy them all three anyway.

 

[Netrosis]

I won't pay full price for [sup]1[/sup]/[sub]3[/sub] of a game. However, I consider StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty to be a full game with planned expansions.

Summed it up pretty much there.

The game is a full and wholesomely decent game ON ITS OWN, nobody knows for sure what the prices for the expansions will be, but you can be assured in knowing that if it's just as much as the original game for much less content, there'll be a stink up.

I'm sick of the drama over Starcraft 2, you'll either buy it or you won't. Sick of people trying to say it's so horribly bad because of x, y or z reasons.

To me, $60 for a subscription-less online multiplayer play is worth it alone. It's starcraft, you KNOW the community is behind making maps, and Blizzard is releasing a fully featured map editor for the masses. They're commited to user created content, and if the quality of original Starcraft Maps, and then WarcraftIII is the standard then I'm quite happy with that. DotA was originally just a map in WC3, and it ended up spawning it's own community, and eventually offshoots of new games developed on the DotA structure to cater to that crowd. I'm not a particularly huge fan of the DotA community because they don't cater well to newcomers, but it's a testament to the strength of what can be developed with some tools.

Having had access to the beta, I have no doubts about the quality of the game. I know Blizzard, I've played nearly all of their games.
The oldschool Lost Vikings game, Diablo II, Warcraft, Warcraft II & Xpacs, Warcraft III, World of Warcraft & all xpacs, Starcraft.
Blizzard are well known for their quality games, and I sincerely doubt that Starcraft 2 is not worth the money.

As for the OP's reasoning "it's 1/3rd of a game", congrats on being silly. Starcraft 2 is a full game on it's own, we're going to have to wait until they release the prices and sample content of the expansions to decide whether the expansions are worth buying.

To not buy it alone because the expansions might be too expensive is a pretty bad way of looking at things.

To put it in comparison, I see PS3 games on the shelves over here in Australia for $108 with less content than the Starcraft 2 BETA.
Anyhow, after playing the Beta, I'm more than satisfied and have pre-ordered the game.