Congratulations on buying 1/3 of a game. Feel free to argue this with your "But there is close to 30 missions" arguements all you want. It doesn't contain all 3 races campaigns like the original did, so it will always be 1/3 of a game to me.

Ah, delicious tears.

Whats funny is that 1 copy only grants u play with people in your region, if someone a friend of yours plays the game and is in another region u cant play with him/her and then one of you would have to buy another copy of another region to play togehter. This is the lamest thing ever, retarded.

Drezden wrote on Aug 2, 2010, 17:22:
Congratulations on buying 1/3 of a game. Feel free to argue this with your "But there is close to 30 missions" arguements all you want. It doesn't contain all 3 races campaigns like the original did, so it will always be 1/3 of a game to me. Won't pay for that. I'm offended enough by all the inadequate DLC companies are already getting people to pay for, and the inadequate sequels like Modern Warfare 2 that middle america is willing to shell out for at the drop of the name. I miss the days of quality over quantity and money grubbing. Blizzard used to be a company I respected, now they're just another money scheming company under the umbrella that is Activision.

It must suck to always look on the negative side. 30 missions that are more unique and smart than every RTS since the original put together and a strong narrative due to concentrating on one race? Nope, it sucks just because before you played all races.

DLC that is actually good and expands on a game you love? Nope, it has to be money grubbing horribleness.

I don't know what to say to you dude. If you like RTS singleplayer SC2 is the best to come out in a looong time, and it's just as long as the original. Games like Mass Effect 2 and Fallout 3 have some excellent DLC that really expands the game you love if you loved it in the first place.

Keep being mad though, I am sure it gets you somewhere.

The 12 year period of anticipation probably didn't hurt either

Make a good PC game that the customer has faith in it being a good product and it will sell like hot cakes. Make a mediocre game and have a reputation for abandoning your buggy games without patching them properly and people won't buy...they will just pirate them.

Piracy isn't the problem. Your shitty product and reputation for fixing the product is the problem.

Silicon Avatar wrote on Aug 2, 2010, 17:41:
I bought so many games from the huge Steam sales over the summer that I don't have time for SC2 right now. Since I know that it will be around forever I know I can wait and pick it up anytime.

Despite what people around here say, it will price drop to $40 at some point in the next few months so you'll get a great price on a good game.

I bought so many games from the huge Steam sales over the summer that I don't have time for SC2 right now. Since I know that it will be around forever I know I can wait and pick it up anytime.

Drezden wrote on Aug 2, 2010, 17:22:
Congratulations on buying 1/3 of a game. Feel free to argue this with your "But there is close to 30 missions" arguements all you want. It doesn't contain all 3 races campaigns like the original did, so it will always be 1/3 of a game to me.

So Dragon Age 2 will be 1/6 of a game even if it will contain 30+ hours of gameplay because you can no longer choose origins. That, of course, is bullshit. And so is your logic.

I don't like their decision either and I probably won't buy the 2 other Starcraft 2 games because I can already boldy say it will be too much of the same for me. But then.. I'm not into RTS games anyway.

It's 1/3rd of a saga. Like Lord of The Rings: Fellowship of The Ring.

Congratulations on buying 1/3 of a game. Feel free to argue this with your "But there is close to 30 missions" arguements all you want. It doesn't contain all 3 races campaigns like the original did, so it will always be 1/3 of a game to me. Won't pay for that. I'm offended enough by all the inadequate DLC companies are already getting people to pay for, and the inadequate sequels like Modern Warfare 2 that middle america is willing to shell out for at the drop of the name. I miss the days of quality over quantity and money grubbing. Blizzard used to be a company I respected, now they're just another money scheming company under the umbrella that is Activision.

Jerykk wrote on Aug 2, 2010, 12:54:
They can't be that happy about it. Assassin's Creed 2 is only $15 now: Link

Price is wrong, for such crap they should be paying me.

HellSlayer wrote on Aug 2, 2010, 16:42:
Americans (we) are to lazy to be worried about a RTS game. Just sayin...

There's no "WE" in America, only "I"

Prez wrote on Aug 2, 2010, 13:59:
Bear in mind I've only owned the game for 2 full days, but afaik, yes, you can stay logged out of Bnet. I actually have 2 campaigns going. One, I connect to Bnet as a sort of a test of how the system works. I have a pretty stable connection and still I've lost connection to Bnet 4 times over a span of 8 hours or so. All that happens is a message comes up saying that you will no longer earn achievements and that the game will only save locally. For the other campaign I have never connected to Bnet again beyond the initial activation.

The biggest downside is that once offline, only the guest campaign can be continued. Any game started on Bnet can only be played on Bnet. Just play as a guest (you can have up to 3 campaigns going at once it looks like) all the time and you'll never have a problem.

You're half right. You can actually play your B.Net campaign offline, as you've already noticed when you lost connection mid-game (and to offer a counterpoint, I've put in nearly 20 hours on the campaign and haven't lost connection yet).

All you need to do is check "Remember Account" on the login, it'll save your account credentials. Block SC2 with your firewall/unplug the router/whatever to test it and load up SC2. It'll offer to take you to your offline profile, where all your saves are available.

Americans (we) are to lazy to be worried about a RTS game. Just sayin...

Anonymous wrote on Aug 2, 2010, 15:01:
While I'm absolutely certain that Starcraft 2 is selling millions of copies, I find it hard to believe that little old England has sales surpassing that of the entire world for the original.

"MCV points out that Blizzard's real-time strategy sequel has sold more copies in the UK in five days that the original StarCraft has sold over its 12-year lifespan."

UK. UK. Keyword: UK.

Zyrxil wrote on Aug 2, 2010, 11:31:
Ah, but as the article points out, the dirty Brits passed on Starcraft 1, which never even broke top-40 in the UK, so it's not that amazing.

You've misread the post - the article states that the game didn't manage to top the top 40, i.e. get to number one, but from what I recall, it was a massive hit in the UK during 1998, certainly one of the biggest sellers.

Steam seems to be the de facto standard for DD, but I think that as publishers start to put in place their competing systems, there will be increased pressure to separate Valve from Steam, to avoid any conflict of interest. These companies are giving money to their competition, and if Valve was doing more full-blown publishing rather than putting out a game every 18 months (and only entering the console market recently), this would probably have happened already. It may still be a smart move, although I don't know how interconnected their teams and business structure are.

Also, SC2 is pretty awesome. It's got more polish than the Turtle Wax factory, and my console-playing friends are just blown away by all the visuals, but the character models in particular. After years of staring at shiny shrink-wrapped Unreal engine faces, I'm inclined to agree.

Anonymous wrote on Aug 2, 2010, 15:01:
While I'm absolutely certain that Starcraft 2 is selling millions of copies, I find it hard to believe that little old England has sales surpassing that of the entire world for the original.

I think Asia alone (probably even just Korea) bought more copies than the UK could possibly muster.

Not the entire world, England only. It's comparing SCII sales against SCI sales only in England.

While I'm absolutely certain that Starcraft 2 is selling millions of copies, I find it hard to believe that little old England has sales surpassing that of the entire world for the original.

I think Asia alone (probably even just Korea) bought more copies than the UK could possibly muster.

StingingVelvet wrote on Aug 2, 2010, 14:46:
Yup. The PC will lead the rise of the indies and small studious because there are no license fees and it's easy to digitally distribute on an open platform. Arguing otherwise is borderline retarded.

Agreed, though don't discount the consoles, the indie scene is strong there as well but it's in the PC that it's flourishing. We're starting to see more and more quality titles and projects, some with AAA production values, a rare few even surpassing them like Heroes of Stalingrad because it's still much cheaper for an Indie to produce a quality title than a developer house under a publisher.

Right now Natural Selection 2 is in its open alpha and reports are pouring in, along with 16,000 pre-orders for the special edition. Though 16,000 isn't much since the studio making NS2 doesn't have massive overheads those 16,000 sales are basically all profit while a publisher has to sell hundreds of thousands of units to even break free. I believe it's this financial flexibility and freedom from schedules and stress that are making the indie scene more and more attractive. The Titan Quest developers, for instance, almost every single one of them, went indie and started working on a game of their own, Grim Dawn. There seems to be a growing tendency for developers to burn out working on a publisher and go indie. It's often that you meet familiar names on many indie houses.

There are risks involved since an indie developer has to eat and care for his or her family and needs but on the other hand when the game's out and if it's decent he doesn't have to sell hundreds of thousands of units just to break even, the return of investment can happen far more quickly than in a publisher.

ASeven wrote on Aug 2, 2010, 14:28:
I think it's exactly because of the rise of digital distribution systems that Indies may triumph, because it's easy for them to put a game on sale and get it noticed. Example: Steam. They often publicize a lot of Indie games on the front page.

If there weren't so many digital distribution systems I don't think Indies would even stand a chance.

Yup. The PC will lead the rise of the indies and small studious because there are no license fees and it's easy to digitally distribute on an open platform. Arguing otherwise is borderline retarded.