Since the announcement that StarCraft II will be shipping as three separate products to be the "StarCraft II Trilogy", there has been several criticising voices against this, in terms of having to purchase several boxes, and possibly paying $150 (£75) just to get the full game.
StarCraftWire.net had an interview with Chris Sigaty, where he disclosed the details of these statements, and whether or not players will have to get them all to play simple multiplayer with each other.
Even though fans have been clamoring for a StarCraft 3 for years now, it seems like Blizzard really has no reason to spend time making one.
They sort of ran the story as far as it could go.
Also, it seems like blizzard is more busy with mediocrity at this point in time.
The problem with Blizzard is they have franchises that don't need sequels. People are happy playing the games that they previously made. What they need is new games, none of this business of trying to transport the old audience into a new version of an old game which only ends up nickle and dime'ing users.
Jason Hall, currently an indie developer and former Blizzard employee, has been sharing some really interesting stories from his long career in the industry for a while now. Some of them are truly insightful, while others may seem depressing.
I’m a little shocked that StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty sold only around 6 million copies. The original StarCraft did over 11 million. Maybe Blizzard was too leisurely in releasing StarCraft 2? Starcraft 2 came out 12 years after it’s predecessor.
and people wonder why we are having mtx in everything. i blame the people who actual buy them.
It's interesting he used Brazil as an example of the importance of regional pricing. Nowadays many companies on Steam are setting their prices in Brazil as high as, if not more than, their price in USA. I simply refused to buy a few games when I noticed that's the case.
Illogical Games has just announced the official release of Star Discord, the one-man indie dev's charming StarCraft lookalike on mobile.
These things had better not be billed at the price of full retail games, else it'll be a very large ripoff just for a single campaign.
I'm pretty positive to this. I'd have liked a second expansion to SC1 anyway!
If releasing it in 3 parts means getting the multi-player into my hands quicker then I am all for it. I am not sure if I want to spend over 150 dollars to play the single player campaign though and am hoping they are not as pricey as a full game.
I can somewhat understand this model if they prefer this instead of charging monthly. Think about it as continuous gameplay for the lifetime of the game by this or that price, rather than continuous monthly fees.
If that's what this model means, I guess it is fine.
I find the criticism to be unfounded, we will not pay 150 dollars for an SC1-like campaign, the quality and quantity of content is on a completely different level.
Besides, from what I heard the content of the other boxes will be single-player only, so those that care only about the multi-player part will have no trouble with it. Also, I do no believe that Blizzard will charge the same amount of money for the "expansions" as for the first package.