41 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >
 |
| 21. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 14, 2008, 00:03 |
Ludomancer |
|
|
December 3rd, 2007 -
Activision Blizzard chairman and CEO Robert Kotick on future property handling:
"You can expect virtually every one of those properties will be exploited on an annual or close to annual basis."
October 13th, 2008 -
Blizzard's Vice President of Game Design Rob Pardo on Starcraft2's two followups:
"With any luck, it would be like a year for each successive one, but that's going to be a target date, that's not a promise."
They might be good games, but you have to be a complete idiot to think this is anything but the milking of a popular franchise. Plainly someone on the Top at Activision handed down the order that they wanted to see revenue on a regular basis, and Blizzard is complying with that. Not because they decided it on their own. There are too many factors here that make this decision a bad one for Blizzard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 20. |
No subject |
Oct 13, 2008, 22:58 |
Hump |
|
|
| I can't comment on their motives but it IS a bit silly to assume that Activision is somehow directing Blizzard to do this. I have no doubt that the principals at Acti go to bed each night on their knees praying in thanks for the money factory called Blizzard. Blizzard does whatever they damn well please as they have more cash reserves than many major publishers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Both the “left” and the “right” pretend they have the answer, but they are mere flippers on the same thalidomide baby, and the truth is that neither side has a clue."
- Jim Goad |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 19. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 13, 2008, 22:49 |
space captain |
|
|
Right. You just love to whine about things that you don't care or know anything about.
can you fucking read? i explained my reason for speaking out - you ass licking knob slobbers can keep on sucking industry dick till the cows come home.. thats what you are there for, so people with actual logic can see how fucked up things really are
comparing starcraft 2 to the Lord of the Rings trilogy... yeh, thats exactly what its like, dumbfuck |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 18. |
No subject |
Oct 13, 2008, 22:29 |
xXBatmanXx |
|
|
| If everyone was happy about it - you can guarantee Colayco would take credit..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. / Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder.
Playing: RL |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 17. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 13, 2008, 22:25 |
Fibrocyte |
|
|
Some people don't like the Terrans and want to play their favorite race in singleplayer. They also might not want to wait 2 years for it. It's not really hard to understand.
Oops - didn't know you were privy to the release schedule. Please link your source.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 16. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 13, 2008, 22:25 |
Yifes |
|
|
Some people don't like the Terrans and want to play their favorite race in singleplayer. They also might not want to wait 2 years for it. It's not really hard to understand.
Nobody's arguing about that. It's easy to understand that people perfer certain races, but that's not the chief complaint.
The problem is that people feel that Blizzard is cutting out content intentionally and ripping off gamers by releasing one product as three - hence all the bullshit spewed about microtransactions and horse armor. Yeah I'd be pissed too if SCII only had a third of the content of the original, but that's not what's happening here.
This comment was edited on Oct 13, 2008, 22:31. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 15. |
No subject |
Oct 13, 2008, 22:13 |
Verno |
|
|
I don't get people's obsessions with having single player campaigns from every race. Instead of 10 terran missions, 10 zerg missions, and 10 toss missions, you get 30 terran missions with the first installment of SCII.
Some people don't like the Terrans and want to play their favorite race in singleplayer. They also might not want to wait 2 years for it. It's not really hard to understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playing: Super Mario 3D Land, Tales of Graces F, Fire Emblem 3DS
Watching: Hannibal, Community, Life |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 14. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 13, 2008, 22:00 |
Yifes |
|
|
expansions are add-ons to a FULL game.. not piecemeal portions of one FULL game
I don't get people's obsessions with having single player campaigns from every race. Instead of 10 terran missions, 10 zerg missions, and 10 toss missions, you get 30 terran missions with the first installment of SCII.
Were you also upset that Lord of the Rings was released as three separate movies instead of one? Splitting up the content is fine if there's enough content - and so far there's no indication that Blizz is cutting back on quality or quantity.
but i really dont give a fuck TBH, starcraft was ok - but ive never been a big fan of RTS in general.. in fact i rather dislike the genre
Right. You just love to whine about things that you don't care or know anything about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 13. |
No subject |
Oct 13, 2008, 21:41 |
space captain |
|
|
the question really comes down to whether or not the parts will actually be "expansions" rather than "portions".. when you plot the development as 3 separate pieces from the get-go, why wouldnt you want to limit the content of each part?
expansions are add-ons to a FULL game.. not piecemeal portions of one FULL game
and yeh, you wont ever hear any dev saying "oh yeh, we are gonna fuck your wallet six ways from sunday on this shit, baby!" .. so its just as naive to even ask that question in the first place
but i really dont give a fuck TBH, starcraft was ok - but ive never been a big fan of RTS in general.. in fact i rather dislike the genre
the thing that makes me want to chime in is this bullshit pattern of "microtransactions" and subscription based bullshit thats coming down the pike.. these days, not only can devs release buggy unfinished games with a clear (but patched!) conscience, now they want you to pay them more to fix the broken shit
the philosophy in the gaming market is leaking out from the inside, like devs going insane for PHAT LEWT!!!!!!!!!111 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 12. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 13, 2008, 21:40 |
Yifes |
|
|
When you use a certain business model that sets you apart from other companies for over ten years and then change it abruptly, people will wonder what's up. Is that really that weird?
Yeah it is really that weird because other RTS games have been released with only single race single player campaigns, and they happen to be very good games. There is nothing "abrupt" about this.
The whining is just another example of the idiocy and immaturity that permeates the internet.
This comment was edited on Oct 13, 2008, 21:42. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 11. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 13, 2008, 21:30 |
Fibrocyte |
|
|
Blizzard is announcing a lot of new things now because it's their time to do so.
Blizzard has not announced details on the paid customization, so why whine yet? Plus, it's optional.
Each of the 3 Starcrafts will be worth the money, no doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 10. |
No subject |
Oct 13, 2008, 21:28 |
Fausticle |
|
|
Every time I've bought a Blizzard product I've always felt I had gotten my money's worth. So I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.
Speaking of getting my money worth, I picked up The Witcher Enhanced Edition last week. Holly crap did they go above and beyond!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 9. |
No subject |
Oct 13, 2008, 21:15 |
Bhruic |
|
|
Leaving the whole actual debate aside, what exactly did anyone expect them to say? "Yeah, we are totally milking it!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 8. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 13, 2008, 21:15 |
Wowbagger_TIP |
|
|
I enjoyed Starcraft and some other good RTS games mainly for the single-player campaigns. I don't really get into the multiplayer much since it tends to quickly turn into a contest to see who can run through a build order the fastest. That doesn't interest me in the slightest.
So I have mixed feelings about this game now. On the one hand, there's only the one campaign in the first release (which I assume will be full price). That means I won't get to play the other races. On the other hand, each expansion will have another huge campaign with it, which is cool. Hopefully those will be priced as expansions though.
Regardless, it's pretty easy to understand why people don't like the change, or are at least suspicious of it. Blizzard should have seen this coming and done a bit of prep work before springing it on everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 7. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 13, 2008, 21:13 |
Cram |
|
|
D0, It's Starcraft.
Blizzard, I believe, is one of the few developers left that hasn't blamed Piracy for anything. Yet. It's not like they've had to, at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 6. |
No subject |
Oct 13, 2008, 21:07 |
D0 |
|
|
In an age where developers are blaming piracy for poor game sales is this really a wise decision?
Answer: NO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 5. |
No subject |
Oct 13, 2008, 20:58 |
PropheT |
|
|
Yes, it really is that weird, especially when the expansion pack is an element of the game that seems as though it's a core part of what it was.
The Frozen Throne was one thing, but if the Frozen Throne had been the Undead expansion for WC3, and The Green Whatchamajig the orc expansion, and the Purple Headed Warriors was the night elf expansion... people would have said the same thing about WC3, right?
When you use a certain business model that sets you apart from other companies for over ten years and then change it abruptly, people will wonder what's up. Is that really that weird?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 4. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 13, 2008, 20:56 |
Cram |
|
|
Maybe people are making too big of a deal, but I do not blame them. With all the attention over the merger, and all this WoW stuff like paid customization, it becomes easy to see Blizzard changing their ways towards making as much money as possible at any cost.
I personally like the concept of having the main multiplayer for starcraft in the initial release, and getting two more massive expansions (that's how I see them) over time. I like the idea for this game, but completely understand why other people don't. I just hope everyone understands they get a full game (multiplayer wise, and single player wise from a point of view) right off the bat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 3. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 13, 2008, 20:55 |
NiteX |
|
|
As long as each game is $20 I don't see it being that big of a deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 2. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 13, 2008, 20:52 |
Slink |
|
|
| Before they can say this, I'd like to see the pricing structure they plan for the trilogy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
41 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
