Blizzard Shifts to StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swarm

Can't wait!

They JUST started? Well, I don't expect this to be out in the next two years, seeing how it is blizzard. Diablo III might be out by then.

And I certainly don't expect a GOTY edition with all three expansions for another 5. *sad face*

woot woot! looking forward more to D3 though..

Adding more units is just going to make it all the more difficult to keep it balanced.

I was just about to edit my post, but yeah this would not be a surprise at ALL. I don't expect to see a price drop on WoL for years to come. I hate greedy companies = /

Especially when it's the same game as the first one. Albeit with improved graphics and some new units.

What company isn't greedy? They're all out there to make money. If you don't agree with the company's tactics, then don't buy the game.

Hey, that's exactly what I did. No way am I paying $60 for SC2. I haven't and I don't plan to, ever.

ehh

I you imagine that Startcraft 2 will cost 180$ in the end (3x60$ each act. Probably the most expensive game all time, considering it's only one game (in 3 acts) and not a game + 2 sequels)

then you can pretty much expect that Diablo 3 will have a subscription model like WoW! Which is really sad, but I don't see Blizzard becoming less greedy so long as they still are one of the top games companies, and more importantly one of the top PC only game companies, but most important of all, it seems to work for them.

It's not like they're breaking new ground on it. The engine is already made and parts of the story should already be set in stone. They just need to make the Zerg campaign and add a bunch of multiplayer maps.

so you're not going to pay for a good game, unless you don't like RTS games

whats all this 60 dollars for the expansion? blizzard has always priced its expansion sets at about half the price of the original package. I havent seen blizzard deviate from that since its first expansion through to its most recent with WoW. the sequels will probably be 39.99 which is reasonable imho.

when you see proof that HoTS will be 60 bucks, let me know. otherwise its just trolling.

as for D3, i dont understand this speculation about a monthly fee, i just dont see it, and likewise, until blizzard says otherwise i'll assume it will follow the trend of the previous two diablos and be free while utilizing battlenet.

remember WoW is their cash cow and with their secret MMO in the works, I dont expect blizzard to have to charge for diablo3. they have enough money amassed already.

the only thing i find daunting is the fact that blizzard said it would be 18 months till HoTS came out, which in blizzard time sounds right. i'm just not a fan of blizzard time.

Activision owns Blizzard. That's why it will cost $60 per expansion... in fact that's why it costs $60 instead of $50

I second not being a fan of blizzard time. Especially with Starcraft. I appreciate the effort they put in to balancing the units all out, but really, I think they spend far too much time on that. Just release the game and let the players give feedback to make the process faster. It REALLY doesn't matter until the tournaments start.

People who complain about the Price tag of Blizzard games clearly has no business playing any RTS, MMO, or Hack and Slash game. ALL of Blizzard's games are developed with the player and the quality of the game in mind and have always delivered a $100 gaming experience for only $60.

Each of these games are full 8-10 hour campaigns plus multiplayer. That's no worse than any Xbox game with XBOX live compatibility, except Blizzard makes good games and most people don't.

You dummies who did not buy SC2, are dumb. The game is awesome. That being said, people who did not play or did not like the original SC are probably not going to be converted by SC2, you either like this kind of game or you do not. People generally fall into one of three categories: 1. Blizzard style RTS players, 2. C&C style RTS players, 3. Neither. Only the first category is eligible to really like SC2. Having played a couple of the C&C style RTS games, they just do not have the style, skill and balance (of a Blizzard title), no matter how much snazzy live action and similar gimmickry they put into it.

Do we even know the price of these expansions?

Nope.

Im not quite as worried about the price as much as I am about how long it is gonna take to come out. Im sure everyone will be able to save up and afford it by the time it finally does release. This is Blizzard we are talking about, after all

You have to think though, they don't have to build the engine, just mod the game. So it shouldn't be too long.

1. New Battle.net integration with Starcraft, Achievements, Cross-Game friends list
2. To play the multiplayer, you don't need the additional 2 games, the first game is still fine enough
3. LANS were popular when people didn't have good broadband connections. Now that we do, LAN play isn't really necessary. Additionally, it's to help combat piracy, and Blizzard deserves that, even if it's to eliminate a hardly used feature. And besides, I'm sure someone will crack it anyway.

For the amount of hours you would pour into Starcraft 2, $60 is chump change compared to say... Almost 90% of all console games ever. Would you say the same things regarding Bungie and the Halo franchise? Why did they have to release more and more games, why couldn't it just be one big story with the whole storyline wrapped in one game?

OH YEAH, because it would be 40 hours long you dolt. That's why they make multiple games, the story is so friggen huge it'd be stupid to make one game with all of it in it. If you think a 10 year dev cycle was bad for Starcraft 2, imagine if all 3 campaigns were in one. We'd have waited for another 10 years.

The next expansion release will be Soon™.

who the hell lans these days? get with the times you can still sit next to each other and play on battle net

Don't worry we have at least 5 years to save up the $60 lol!

1 - Achievements? There's not really that many, and they're not that interesting. Cross-Game friends list? I don't have any friends that play WoW. It might be interesting with Diablo 3, but even then, it's not that amazing.

2 - If you want to play multiplayer with all the units they'll add and features and eventual bug fixes I'm sure, yeah, you'll need the expansions.

3 - not everyone has that good of a broadband connection, and it still doesn't solve the issue of if you've got 4 people in one place who want to play together. You're playing on one connection, which makes LAN far, FAR better.

Why are you comparing Starcraft 2 to console games? It's not a console game, and it's not marketed to console gamers.

I also fail to see your 'complaint' that the story would be longer? I've invested waaaay over 40 hours into games like Oblivion, Fallout 3, Dragon Age, and Fable.

If it's got a great story, length isn't an issue. And really, to be honest, the story of WoL didn't end up that great.

Look at all the SC2 nerds down thumbing the truth. How cute.

@Kelavarus

You asked for one good reason for Starcraft 2 to be at $60 (counting out LAN play and 1 race campaign), not one good reason that it should be $60 for YOUR TASTES.

Starcraft 2 is tailor made for millions of fans who can enjoy it to its fullest extent. Whether or not that matches to what your expectations are is a moot point.

I gave reasons that Starcraft 2 should be worth $60, and also vouched why it's 1 campaign is plenty enough. I'm sorry you don't have a broadband connection, think that 1 campaign is plenty, and don't have friends who enjoy multiple Blizzard titles. The fact of the matter is, most of Blizzard's fans love Starcraft 2 and its sales figures speak for themselves.

Also, to counterpoint your dumb arguments:

2. Bug fixes are issued regardless if you have the additional titles
3. Not everyone has a good broadband connection (for multiplayer).... TOO BAD! This game wasn't made for them. If you feel slighted, then wait for a no b-net crack to come out and then buy the game. At least you'd still be showing your support to a powerhouse development company.

4/5. I'm comparing it in a sense of campaign durations. Most games now have a very short campaign, anywhere from 6-10 hours for single player. Starcraft 2's single player campaign fits right in that slot.

Additionally, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Dragon Age, and Fable are all RPG's too, not RTS's. If anything, you'd be comparing this to other RTS's like C&C4.

5. I'm not complaining that the story should be longer, YOU ARE! You're the one complaining that it's only 1 race and not 3. Would you have rather had shorter stories that had less to offer, but offered all 3 campaigns? What then? 2 expansions that cost 60 dollars to further expand the story of each race each time? You'd end up at the same place at the end!!!!! Your argument makes no sense.

Edit:

5. I noticed you weren't the original one complaining about length, however the general argument that 1 campaign isn't enough is stupid.

cool, so that should take about another 20ft.

I've started measuring Blizzard release schedules using the geological shift of the river near my house...

I'm hoping they release a balance patch soon... I'm not holding my breath.

I bet if Blizz kept their mouth shut about the Protoss and Zerg Campaigns and just gave us WoL there would be a lot less complaining. Then announce the next one a few months before it's out. But noooo just because they announced they're making three ppl get all pissy they're not getting it all in one... And they say blizz is greedy...