| N4G | VGReleases | BADJoystick | GameNews24 | ZTGD | Price Comparison |

340°

$150 to Play Full StarCraft II?

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.

Read Full Story >>

starcraftwire.net

[via starcraftwire.net]

Leord - contributor
Published: 442 days 6 hours ago | News | Gaming | PC

Save | Email | Info | Report | Add Alt Source

Comment Settings

Showing: 1 - 31 of 31 Comments

Shut this user up

Let user speak

kalos - 442 days 8 hours ago

1 -

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.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

Leord - 442 days 7 hours ago

1.1 -

I don't really feel like it's a ripoff. You get what you pay for, I think.

I mean, I like classic SC1 multiplayer more than exp anyway ^^

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

SCFreelancer - 442 days 7 hours ago

1.2 -

It depends on the details of this deal if you ask me. If every product offers you multiplayer functionality then additional chapters only offer additional singleplayer. While I love singleplayer alot, that would not be the same value for the same amount of money.

In short: if the value for money is good and remains the same for all three products than I don't see any problem with this setup.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

barom - 442 days 4 hours ago

1.3 -

I think the first one to come out might cost 50$ and the others that'll follow will cost around 20-30$ as they are kinda like an expansion pack. That's what I'm guessing anyway. I find it hard to believe that Blizzard would rip-off their customers but they are controlled by Activision so who knows. I mean look at how many Guitar Hero's out and seems like a COD every year looks more and more possible.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

Raz - 442 days 1 hour ago

1.4 - WHAAAAT???

Am I going crazy, or do you have to buy all three in order to play as the other two species? ..So if I don't fork over the full $150, I'm stuck with a single campaign?

Complete bullcrap, says I. Blizzard is getting greedy - I wouldn't pay that for a good console game, let alone a PC game. Oooh, so they made an extra 15 levels per campaign. I can do that with Staredit, I don't need to pay more of my hard earned money for that! The excuse that "it's just like having 2 expansion packs" doesn't hold water. That's like saying 'you can have a good meal for a minimum price, but the table, cutlery and plates will cost you extra'. These are things that are SUPPOSED to be included!!! Sure you can do without, but I don't like eating off the floor with my fingers; and neither do most other folks.

I guarantee that publishers who shaft their customers are going to have their darling IP pirated - repeatedly and violently. Not by me; but just look at the reaction to Spore's DRM. It isn't just a refusal to pay...it's the principle of the thing. People who feel taken advantage of are going to return the insult.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

JsonHenry - 441 days 13 hours ago

1.5 -

It sounds to me like they are all going to be completely full single player games. You just play as one side (one story) in each of the three for about 25-35 campaign missions. That is more than what you get from some games that charge the same..

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

Leord - 442 days 8 hours ago

2 -

I'm pretty positive to this. I'd have liked a second expansion to SC1 anyway!

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

SCFreelancer - 442 days 7 hours ago

2.1 -

I agree. Even now I would still buy an SC1 expansion ^^.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

Leviathon - 442 days 8 hours ago

3 -

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.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

Medievaldragon - 442 days 8 hours ago

4 -

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.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

Leord - 442 days 7 hours ago

4.1 -

Also, I think it will also be a testament to that Battle.net 2.0 won't have a monthly fee or the like! As they are getting continous money from it.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

Proxy - 442 days 1 hour ago

4.2 - Why would there be a fee?

Are they continually developing and expanding the game? No, they just release the game, and then are done with it. Paying for multiplayer would only mean that SC1 has a more active multiplayer than SC2.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

Synteny - 442 days 7 hours ago

5 -

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.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

Leord - 442 days 7 hours ago

5.1 -

Yeah, the "expansions" (part 2 and 3) will probably be a lot cheaper.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

Wuushu - 442 days 7 hours ago

6 -

Good quality games, i wouldnt mind paying the price

Agree(4) | Disagree(1) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

Leord - 442 days 7 hours ago

6.1 -

My sentiment exactly.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

Xwow2008 - 442 days 7 hours ago

6.2 - i agree

because i trust blizzard.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

lento - 442 days 6 hours ago

6.3 -

just keep the online free

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

habsfan9 - 442 days 6 hours ago

7 -

Until they announce what the price will be, Blizzard should not be blasted or made assumptions of. They might sell each campaign for $60 each, they might release them for half of that, or even half of that!

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

Reibooi - 442 days 6 hours ago

8 -

I doubt it's really as long as blizzard is making it out to be. It's prolly gonna be 3 semi short campaigns which if used as one game would have been a very very long campaign however thats not reason enough to make it into 3 games. Unless they are like 30$ each it's gonna be a ripoff and I doubt they are gonna charge that little it will most like be 40-50$ each.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

theCHUNK - 442 days 6 hours ago

9 -

I'm not sure what the fuss is. Don't want to buy the other two for the campaign stuff? Then don't do it. I still haven't played the single-player campaign for TFT - as long as they don't make the games incompatible between versions, I don't see the problem.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

Tyrael - 442 days 6 hours ago

10 -

The only thing Blizzard has ever done to it's loyal fanbase is make them wait, which isn't a terrible crime considering the value and perfection in each game they create. Whatever they decide to do, I'm sure it will ultimately seem reasonable to us. They're the only game developer I actually put my trust in.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

moe84 - 442 days 5 hours ago

11 -

If Blizz has that much campaign content that each faction pretty much needs their own game, $50 is a great price per.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

Panthers - 442 days 5 hours ago

12 -

This is awesome. I am loving the dedication to each campaign. They deserve more than just 10 maps per campaign

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

MajesticBeast - 442 days 5 hours ago

13 -

rofl 150 i feel the pirate within me growing stronger.

Agree(3) | Disagree(0) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

Leord - 442 days 5 hours ago

14 -

Well, it's not really $150 per se, it's more like buying three entire games, or close to it. You don't have to pay that to play the entire (current) lineup of units in multiplayer.

I am VERY positive about this anyway. Ask me on StarCraftWire.net if you have further questions, or the live chat there.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

Hawkeyes315 - 442 days 4 hours ago

15 - hmmm

I will glady pay full price because each campaign includes 26-32 hours of gameplay, plus they all have multiplayer on them. Therefore, if you bought all three that's an amazing amount of gametime, especially for a stratedgy game.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

UIOP - 442 days 2 hours ago

16 -

As long as a player owning one part of the game can play custom maps that has been created on other versions I'll be happy. Because I can foresee that a lot of people that only want multiplayer will just stay with their first bought version.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

Harryhit4 - 442 days ago

17 - To Blizzard

Don't come crying to us when your game is 90% bootlegged/10% retail bought.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

Neo604 - 441 days 16 hours ago

18 - $150 is a rip off.

everyone knows u can download for free.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

Deee187 - 441 days 13 hours ago

19 -

fuk it just download it, dont support this crap.
The video game industry is turning to sh!t and they keep getting more greedy.
Now we get unfinished games and buy download content later or we get something like starcraft.
Were getting ripped off.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) |

Showing: 1 - 31 of 31 Comments

Add Comment (Gamer Zone)

Gamer Zone Posting Guidelines
The Gamer Zone is for members who want a more friendly and civilized discussion. This section is heavily moderated by the N4G staff, so leave your fanboyism at the door please. Members who are unable to behave in a mature and respectful manner will be temporarily or permanently restricted from posting in the Gamer Zone. Using words such as Xbots and Sony droids, or other words from the console war vocabulary, is strictly prohibited in this Zone.
Read More...

You must log in to post comments.

Username:

Password:

Remember

Comment Settings

Showing: 1 - 6 of 6 Comments

1 CEO of Troll Corp | 442 days 7 hours ago - User only got 1 bubble - Show

Shut this user up

Let user speak

Endorphin - 442 days 7 hours ago

1.1 - Dont never put those two ever again!

You will get what you pay for! Starcraft is too good to be played with any controller.

Agree(2) | Disagree(1) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

habsfan9 - 442 days 6 hours ago

1.2 - @ Endorphin

If i remember correctly, Blizzard released Starcraft for the N64, which used a controller

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

Sony Defense Farce - 442 days ago

1.3 -

and it was a complete disaster, habsfan. blizzard wont be releasing games on consoles any time soon. it takes them long enough to make a damn pc game, i could only imagine how long it would take if they started making games for the BS3.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

DFresh - 441 days 21 hours ago

2 -

Star Craft II is gonna be awesome but it sucks that they're turning this game into a trilogy.
Then again if I was Blizzard making over $2 billion dollars in revenue w/ 3 games by charging subscription fees I would do the same exact thing they're doing now trying to find more ways to make more money by charging you more.
I bet you they're going to do the same thing to Diablo 3 as well make it into a trilogy and just charge you more money.
I don't care how much this game costs I want it bad, it looks fun, and it's a must buy this holiday season.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) |

Shut this user up

Let user speak

zephyra - 441 days 16 hours ago

3 - whoa this is ironic

and this is why piracy is damn rampant in the world

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) |

Showing: 1 - 6 of 6 Comments

Add Comment (Open Zone)

Open Zone Posting Guidelines
The Open Zone is a lightly moderated comment section which is open to all members. With enthusiastic fans eager to defend their favorite platform this place can get pretty hot.
Read More...

You must log in to post comments.

Username:

Password:

Remember

Join N4G

Login

About N4G

N4G is a social game news site that covers the game industry 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
More Info... | Submit News

- Site Menu
  
  Game Index
  Help & Info
  
  RSS Feed
  Feedback
  
  Full Menu...
  Webmaster Tools