Stropp's World

Games And Gamery

One Game For The Price Of Three

Posted by Stropp on October 17, 2008

Shouldn’t that be the other way around?

Blizzard doesn’t seem to think so.

For some reason, Blizzard have decided to release Starcraft 2 as three separate games, with the campaigns for Protoss, Terran, and Zerg each being a separate game. It also appears that each game will be released as much as a year apart.

In an interview with Blizzard Lead Producer, Chris Sigaty, MTV Multiplayer Blog goes into the reasons why Blizzard are taking this particular path.

What worries me is the multiplayer aspect. The interview tells us this about multiplayer.

However, if you want particular units for the multiplayer portion, you’ll need to buy the product that has those units.

What does this mean? Does it mean that if you buy the Terran game, you won’t be able to play as Protoss in multiplayer? Or are the particular units special units that you get when you buy a particular version?

With the potential two year gap between the first and last of the trilogy, does that mean if I want to play Protoss multiplayer, I’ll have to wait until the final box is released?

At first glance, this doesn’t seem terribly well thought out to me. Starcraft has always been about the multiplayer. That’s where the long term success has been. The huge televised, multiplayer tournaments in Korea are not concerned about single player campaigns.

On second thought it more likely that it’s been well thought out by some suit who is more concerned with wringing out a few extra dollars than by doing the right thing by players.

And wring out the dollars is where it’s at. As it stands now, if I want to play Starcraft 2 in it’s entirety, then I’ll probably have to shell out for the price of three full games. That’s 300 plus Aussie dollars.

One game for the price of three. Could Starcraft 2 be the most expensive PC game ever?

This reeks of money grubbing.


  1. Hudson Said,

    Lame. I wasn’t going to get Starcraft 2 anyway, but they better not pull this crap with Diablo 3

  2. arbitrary Said,

    I owuldn’t mind if I thought they needed the money ;p Actually, what Hudson says is close to the truth – I’m not interested in Starcraft as I never played it. If Diablo 3 goes this way, then I’m done with Blizzard.

  3. Aaron Said,

    If particular units are only possible by purchasing the expansions (which is basically what they are), then I would guess that they’re talking about something similar to the extra units provided in the expansion for LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth 2. The RotWK expansion added semi-hero units to all factions, as well as some others.

    In other words, I think all factions will be available in the first game, but they’ll make you buy the expansions to have the fully balanced collection of units.

    I say it’s not fully balanced without the expansions because to balance every possible combination or lack thereof would take too much work for them and not be cost-effective. That’s a minimum of three possible unit collections that has to be balanced ( 1 – the original game, 2 – the original plus the sequel, 3- the original plus the second sequel / third game), and there’s likely to be more possibility than that.

    I didn’t realize the multiplayer would be affected. That makes me very skeptical of 3-part idea.

Add A Comment

Subscribe to the RSS Feed For These Comments

BlogHistory



MainCategories