View Full Version : Ready to pay for Diablo3 5 times?
GodnataS
11-10-2008, 16:04
:rant:
Would you still be willing to get D3 if they made seperate campaigns for each class and released the game 5 times? $250 for D3? Small chance, but I also never thought I would see Blizzard split SC2 into 3 games.
Next thing ya know they're gonna tell us we have to pay for B-Net also.
-A blizzard fan who is losing his enthusiasm...
/ :rant:
Sein Schatten
11-10-2008, 16:06
but I also never thought I would see Blizzard split SC2 into 3 games.
edit: Oh, WTF? That is insane. WTF are they idiots thinking? :rant: I am not gonna buy the game 3 times to get the full story. :rant:
GodnataS
11-10-2008, 16:09
Starcraft 2 has been split into 3 games, so to get the whole campaign you have to buy it 3 times.
He is whining about Blizzard's decision to release split SC2's campaigns per race into separate releases.
As in, first SC2 will feature a very big Terran campaign that's completely different from multiplayer, then it will have 2 x-packs that will have Zerg and Protoss campaigns respectively.
I honestly don't see why they are whining about this. The campaigns are A. going to be massive, B. will actually be separate games from multi-player in their own right. And the best part, people are already whining about price without knowing jack sh*t about how the pricing will work or even taking in consideration how big the campaigns will be.
Omikron8
11-10-2008, 21:20
The revenue and popularity changed blizzard's perspective forever, i used to think they were not driven by greed but my opinion on that matter has changed recently
Sein Schatten
11-10-2008, 21:35
the revenue and popularity changed blizzard's perspective forever, i used to think they were not driven by greed but my opinion on that matter has changed recently
First part is not allowed to post here. Better edit it. ;) Though I kinda agree with the sentiments.
That move changes Bli$$ard into a bad light, IMO. :(
no i would just pirate diablo 3 5 times then just like i will pirate starcraft 2 3 times because of their recent decision
the revenue and popularity changed blizzard's perspective forever, i used to think they were not driven by greed but my opinion on that matter has changed recently
This kind of drivel makes baby Jesus sad. The nerve of Blizzard! How dare they develop single-player campaigns into actual, stand-alone games and ask for money according to the effort they put in!
Starcraft 2 single-player campaigns are going to be massive and developed enough to be stand-alone products. They are essentially releasing three Starcrafts worth of single-player, and people immediately start crying about cost, without taking in consideration the scope of the product or how much it will actually cost.
The most ironic part of your post? You b*tching about Blizzard's "greed" and then declare that you will pirate it. Your hypocrisy is astounding.
Omikron8
11-10-2008, 21:46
i wouldn't pirate it if they didn't split it :)
and i'm going to guess that activision-blizzard's definition of a stand-alone product is going to be less than our definition
Sein Schatten
11-10-2008, 21:49
This kind of drivel makes baby Jesus sad. The nerve of Blizzard! How dare they develop single-player campaigns into actual, stand-alone games and ask for money according to the effort they put in!
Starcraft 2 single-player campaigns are going to be massive and developed enough to be stand-alone products. They are essentially releasing three Starcrafts worth of single-player, and people immediately start crying about cost, without taking in consideration the scope of the product or how much it will actually cost.
The most ironic part of your post? You b*tching about Blizzard's "greed" and then declare that you will pirate it. Your hypocrisy is astounding.
1. Massive? Who knows. Not you, not me.
2. They are not worth full price. Only one packet is worth full price. Why? Because the Development Kit to create content is already there. Making content is a breeze once a development kit exists.
3. Sell the first Terran campaign and everything needed for full MP experience and sell the others as DLC or expansions for 10 bucks max. More is pure ripoff.
Brilliant logic.
"If they released 3 standard campaigns of 11-12 missions each, I would buy it. If they decided to make an effort into turning each one of these campaigns into an entire game, releasing the content equivalent of 9 campaigns that sports numerous unique game play features, I would totally buy it, but only if they didn't charge for the work they are doing. But since they are charging more money for appropriately more work, I am going to declare them greedy capitalist pigs and just steal their game."
Magical. :rolleyes:
1. Massive? Who knows. Not you, not me.
2. They are not worth full price. Only one packet is worth full price. Why? Because the Development Kit to create content is already there. Making content is a breeze once a development kit exists.
3. Sell the first Terran campaign and everything needed for full MP experience and sell the others as DLC or expansions for 10 bucks max. More is pure ripoff.
1. It's what Blizzard clearly said, that's what I am going with. Every snipit of information on Terran single-player campaign demonstrated it to be bigger, more advanced, and with new fundamental gamefeatures specifically for Terran single-player. That's more than the entire bloody Warcraft 3 and TFT campaigns had combined.
2. They are not just adding new content. The new campaigns are coming in what are essentially expansion packs. They are developing different campaign structures for each race.
3. No, it's not. They will sell expansions according to the content and development in them, not what whiny, greedy bastards demand they sell them for.
Sein Schatten
11-10-2008, 21:55
Brilliant logic.
"If they released 3 standard campaigns of 11-12 missions each, I would buy it. If they decided to make an effort into turning each one of these campaigns into an entire game, releasing the content equivalent of 9 campaigns that sports numerous unique game play features, I would totally buy it, but only if they didn't charge for the work they are doing. But since they are charging more money for appropriately more work, I am going to declare them greedy capitalist pigs and just steal their game."
Magical. :rolleyes:
If your only argument is to twist and turn what others say there is no need to argue with you anymore on this topic.
GoHabsGo
11-10-2008, 21:56
If every year, Blizzard would release 4 new acts for D3 (which is probably the equivalent of a campaign in SC), I'd be more than happy to purchase it.
I don't see why people are crying over this, especially when prices are not even out yet. This is actually a smart concept from Blizzard. And the most ironic thing here is that one of the reason they are doing this is probably because of people like Omikron8 that are always whinning because it takes 8 years for Blizzard to make a new game.
So instead of taking forever to make a game, that would be massive enough to meets todays greed from gamers, they are splitting it. They are saying ''Here, we are releasing part 1 of SC2, which is already bigger than SC but since we don't want Starcraft fans to wait 10 years for something else, we will give them new gameplay 2 times in the next few years.
If your only argument is to twist and turn what others say there is no need to argue with you anymore on this topic.
Avoid the argument. Brilliant.
I pointed out exactly why his logic was bullcrap. He is crying about Blizzard pricing content according to the amount of effort put in it. How am I "twisting" his argument?
Blizzard was quoted as saying that the Terran campaign will be 35-40 hours long with a couple long long movies trying to mix "video and gaming entertainment as one" and then each campaign would be similiar to that.
I think its stupid, but if its 40 hours of gameplay and includes the multi player...meh i guess.
GoHabsGo
11-10-2008, 22:22
How is this stupid? 40 hours of gameplay is an excellent number for any game. So basically they are giving everyone a FULL game and for real fans of SC, they are giving them the opportunity to purchase even MORE gameplay.
If you're not interested in paying more, just buy the first game and stop crying.
nasarius
11-10-2008, 22:29
I'm not annoyed or anything, as I wasn't particularly excited about SC2 in the first place, but I do think it's bizarre that SC2 is being released with just a Terran campaign. Is there even a significant market for expansions that will only add single-player content in a game like this? Serious players will buy the game, maybe play through the campaign, then dive into multiplayer. Maybe six months later, a Zerg campaign is released. In another six months, the Protoss campaign is released.
I've never been a fan of expansions that just add missions, and I expect many people would agree. Especially not when there's an endlessly-playable multiplayer mode as the centerpiece. It's going to be a real tightrope walk between making the expansions attractive to buy without forcing everyone to upgrade to play the latest and greatest multiplayer. Or else they're going to have to release two big BW/LoD-style expansions in an appropriate time frame. And somehow justify the fact that there's no Zerg/Protoss campaign in the meantime, so to learn how to play those races, you need to just jump in and figure it out yourself.
I don't get it at all.
GoHabsGo
11-10-2008, 22:36
What tells you that you want be able to play Zerg/Protoss in the first release? Maybe it's simply 3 different storylines. The first one being oriented toward Terrans.
And somehow justify the fact that there's no Zerg/Protoss campaign in the meantime, so to learn how to play those races, you need to just jump in and figure it out yourself.
Very good point there. Peeps might be floundering around in MP a lot longer. Dunno about anyone else but that kinda puts me off a bit, especially with the different gaming mechanics for the different races.
Any mods/admins with experience wanna comment on plunging head first into Zerg/Protoss?
Bad point. Single-player campaigns are a poor teacher for playing against other people. Vastly different game rules and conditions. Skirmish is infinitely better because it at the very least teaches you the rules by which on-line play occur.
Single player, which I don't really care about, aside; This could be good, even great, or it could be awful and a waste of money.
1:Multiplayer will be fully active and finished from day one. They've said this.
2:They have also said that each installment will be essentially an expansion in addition to a new campaign. If they follow suit from LOD, TFT, and SC:Brood War, then the expansion will fundamentally change the way competitive multiplayer works, adding not just new units but a completely new playstyle and rebalancing of the game. The part that worries me is that Blizzard, having polished WC3 to a fine edge, should know how to make an RTS by now. They shouldn't have to add content packs to rebalance things, in doing so they are essentially admitting that the original game wasn't complete. Add to this the complications of separating Bnet into subcommunities as was done with WC3 and TFT; you couldn't play against other TFT owners unless you owned it as well, and we may have a huge mess. Will bnet be divided into 7 communities? Will blizz decide that in order to keep playing you have to buy the expos as they come out? In other words, is this a huge sellout, or just a way to justify pouring huge amounts of development time into a single game. Who knows?
One thing I know for sure; I sure as hell aren't buying SC2 until I find out. The odds that in 3 months ill have wasted $50 for a crappy terran campaign and have to buy another expo to keep playing with a majority of players online are too high.
For that very reason i am starting to dislike SC2, i hope d3 does not turn that way. :coffee:
GoHabsGo
11-10-2008, 23:09
Here's the quote from Blizzard
StarCraft II Gameplay
Attendees of the StarCraft II Gameplay Panel got to hear big news about the single-player campaign first-hand: The epic story of StarCraft II will span a trilogy of games, with each game’s single-player campaign focusing on a different race. The first game will go into great depth telling the tale of Jim Raynor and the terrans. Two expansion packs will continue the story, delving separately into the saga of Kerrigan and the zerg, and that of the mystic protoss. By structuring the story this way, each campaign can be substantial, lengthy, and include meaningful choices for the player. Each campaign can also include more missions (the developers are targeting 26 to 30 for the first game alone), more interactive settings for players to explore, and more pre-rendered and in-game cinematics than would have been possible within a single game. Attendees also got to see several new cinematics, including a minute of the StarCraft II intro movie and an early peek at a dream sequence related to the Queen of Blades' origin.
See, it's mostly about different storylines. How do you know Jim Raynor will not have the choice to betray the Terrans and join forces with the Zergs after mission 3, allowing you to play tem?
Or, you know, they could just release the multiplayer changes from the x-pack in a patch for those who already bought the game.
*GASP*SHOCKINGCONCEPT*AWE*
How do you know Jim Raynor will not have the choice to betray the Terrans and join forces with the Zergs after mission 3, allowing you to play tem?
*NM, my reading skills need work.
Heres the bottom line: If this was Diablo, Id be ecstatic. 40 hours of gameplay TIMES THREE probably ALL in one year? yowza that sounds good to me. If your a fan of the singe player, this is good news, not bad.
Catchafire
12-10-2008, 01:37
They better hope that the game is somewhere between good and great. If it ain't, then people aren't going to buy it and they are going to lose money. Simple. Games like Hell gate and Conan are perfect examples.
Simple. If it's a great game and the community as a whole is into it then people will buy it if it is reasonably priced. :yes:
rickster
12-10-2008, 02:07
Next thing ya know they're gonna tell us we have to pay for B-Net also.
You spoke too soon. (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/11/blizzards-wilson-some-battle-net-features-to-be-monetized/)
I don't really have anything to say about the topic at hand. Breaking up D3 into multiple games wouldn't work as well as breaking up SC2. And I don't really care about SC2 as I don't get much enjoyment out of RTS's. Though I will be waiting to see if anyone makes a solid Aeon of Strife custom map.
Sein Schatten
12-10-2008, 03:20
Or, you know, they could just release the multiplayer changes from the x-pack in a patch for those who already bought the game.
Or the new units that might be released with the expansion are not released via patch but only if you buy the expansion. So they can milk the players.
*GASP*SHOCKINGCONCEPT*AWE*
omgwtfbbqpwned
12-10-2008, 03:39
You spoke too soon. (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/11/blizzards-wilson-some-battle-net-features-to-be-monetized/)
Lame. If they do monetize B.Net, it better be for minor aspects (e.g. such as becoming a pal to get a signature on the these forums) or if it's for bigger aspects it better be a one-time payment. I am not paying monthly. Sorry, I rather smoke and get cancer.
Or the new units that might be released with the expansion are not released via patch but only if you buy the expansion. So they can milk the players.
*GASP*SHOCKINGCONCEPT*AWE*
This seems infinitely more likely, since this is what they've done in every past game.
Funkopotamus
12-10-2008, 05:27
So you have to buy the game again just to get the campaign? I think think I'll buy it once then read the other plots on wikipedia.
Do what my friends and I do:
I buy zerg campaign, he buys protoss, and the other guy buys terran. We'll switch disc whenever we finish a campaign
Apart from all of the hefty discussion about SC2 this remains a forum for D3, and nothing suggests that what the OP suggested is actually going to happen to that game. Moreover, if it ever became a fact that they'd split the game up I'd have to enforce serious self-control to get my arms down. Think about it. We've waited 8 years for a successor, and now you say we might get a chance of having 3? Or 5 even!? This would have been mindboggingly good news, were it ever the case (which I highly doubt).
Do what my friends and I do:
I buy zerg campaign, he buys protoss, and the other guy buys terran. We'll switch disc whenever we finish a campaign
Guess i could do that.. easier to download from net tho.
Stupid decision to split it up imo. Or have at least some kind of nice combo pack that has them all in one.
I for one, cannot wait to buy my Barbarian campaign!:coffee:
Sein Schatten
12-10-2008, 15:09
This seems infinitely more likely, since this is what they've done in every past game.
I would bet on it. The eastern part of the world don't play SC because of the awesome storyline, but because of the MP competitiveness. To stay at the peak you need all possible units. On the one hand you have the campaign players, they get a new campaign, like 30 maps or something. You have the MP people who get a few more cool units. Last but not least you have the map creators who can use the new units and perhaps a few more functions, fluff/doodads to use. It is a win/win/win. ;)
And Blizz wins ($)
win/win/win/win
It's not just that you don't have access to new units; in WC3, you couldn't play against others with the expo unless you bought it. I'm not sure how that will work, with multiple expos which could also potentially be bought alone. If they rebalance things like they did WC3-TFT then the multiplayer completely changes; not just new units but drastic changes to old units, heavily tweaked build costs, a completely new armor type for crissakes, and new game mechanics. I don't see why its necessary to mix up the game so much, twice, and if they don't make such huge changes, I don't see why it's worth paying for. Kind of a catch-22 unless they make the expos fairly cheap.
These won't be TFT level expansions. This is basically between what most companies provide as DLC and expansions.
Blizzard really needs to learn to communicate better. One simple poorly worded announcement, and suddenly there is a hurricane across every game related forum about Blizzard's "corporate greed" and how they "lost another customer."
Or even better, those who in their righteous indignation will keep on bashing Blizzard while pirating their games.
"Yeah, f*** you mom, you are a total b****. Now gimme my free dinner and cookies, then buy me a god damn car"
These won't be TFT level expansions. This is basically between what most companies provide as DLC and expansions.
Blizzard really needs to learn to communicate better. One simple poorly worded announcement, and suddenly there is a hurricane across every game related forum about Blizzard's "corporate greed" and how they "lost another customer."
Or even better, those who in their righteous indignation will keep on bashing Blizzard while pirating their games.
"Yeah, f*** you mom, you are a total b****. Now gimme my free dinner and cookies, then buy me a god damn car"
Then the sticking point comes at price. I just don't want to be forced to buy epicly amazing super whatever single player campaigns for $50, or even $40, just to continue to play competitive multiplayer. I have no feelings of entitlement here, except perhaps feeling entitled to know what the master plan is before I buy the first installment.
it's blizzard they can do whatever they want and ppl still gonna buy it. just look at wow. they lose one customer out of wat? every 100?
Well, according to SClegacy.com ...
1. These will be single-player releases, stand alone.
2. They will have no effect on multiplayer.
So HL2 styled episodic content, pretty much.
*The brilliant part of this, of course, is that the next post they say:
Biggest 2 questions:
1. Cost?
2. Impact on multiplayer?
God I hate journalists sometimes.
Well, according to SClegacy.com ...
1. These will be single-player releases, stand alone.
2. They will have no effect on multiplayer.
So HL2 styled episodic content, pretty much.
*The brilliant part of this, of course, is that the next post they say:
Biggest 2 questions:
1. Cost?
2. Impact on multiplayer?
God I hate journalists sometimes.
AFAIK, #2 is just plain wrong. They have already stated that it will be a complete expansion with additional multi and single player content.
AFAIK, #2 is just plain wrong. They have already stated that it will be a complete expansion with additional multi and single player content.
so like the guild war model basically?
so like the guild war model basically?
Haven't definitively heard yet of course. I imagine somewhere between Guild Wars and TFT.
Guess i could do that.. easier to download from net tho.
Stupid decision to split it up imo. Or have at least some kind of nice combo pack that has them all in one.
shhh, talking about downloading cracked games can get you infracted because it's against the rules ;)
AFAIK, #2 is just plain wrong. They have already stated that it will be a complete expansion with additional multi and single player content.
That's the problem. As far as you know. We have seen BOTH statements from the journalists, conflicting info. Unless someone provides an actual video of the announcement or Blizzard releases an official one over the net, we won't know which one it is.
Sein Schatten
13-10-2008, 14:12
These won't be TFT level expansions. This is basically between what most companies provide as DLC and expansions.
[Citation needed]
http://sclegacy.com/ (when it comes back up)
search Kotaku.com for Starcraft 2.
Common sense. (releasing 2 expansions of TFT magnitude in gameplay changes in short order for a game that is suppose to have stable competetive play is suicide)
AFAIK, #2 is just plain wrong. They have already stated that it will be a complete expansion with additional multi and single player content.
Okay, I was AT BlizzCon when they made this announcement about SC2, and I listened to the whole open Q&A, so let me clarify this if it hasn't already been stated:
Additional multiplayer content in the second and third releases (Zerg and Protoss, respectively) will pretty much just be new maps. When the first part of the StarCraft 2 trilogy comes out (Terran), it only comes with the Terran campaign but it also includes FULL multiplayer for all three races. Pretty straight forward.
What you guys haven't seen (unless the videos have already leaked on YouTube) were the between-mission interactions and sequences. Seriously this game is going to be Mass Effect with a ton of RTS missions. The animations on character models are phenomenal, there are dozens of "set pieces" (aka rooms and environments to interact with while not in a RTS mission) and literally more missions themselves in each individual campaign than there were in the entire previous game combined. Now multiply the content by three, and I really hope you can see why there was no way it was all going to fit on one disc.
What you guys haven't seen
That's like year+ old news.
But thank you for clarification.
Apocalypse
13-10-2008, 22:18
for a second i thought i had warped to a starcraft forum but anway if they released d3 5 times over and charged full price for each game i would not touch it ever. the point for me is to jump online and group with my buddies. now if d3 was the kind of sp game like morrowind or oblivion (content not fun) then maybe i could see something like this, and maybe thats what SC is doing? then again maybe they are just trying to milk every last dollar they can?
i dont know myself, never liked SC so i guess its a pointless arguement to me
That's like year+ old news.
But thank you for clarification.
Well yes, the concept of these between-mission interactions have been seen before, but I meant the increase in sheer number of them they have now. It's really more like Mass Effect than anything else. For example, they showed a set piece that wasn't even going to be in the game until they finally made the decision to ship it in three parts. It was a run-down bar with Raynor and a new character, Raynor is just sitting there having a drink, you can talk to the marine standing next to him or click on the juke box in the background to change the tune, watch entire news reports on the television/computer screen behind the bar, or choose a mission from the terminal. There are going to be dozens of these environments now instead of just five or six.
Starving_Poet
15-10-2008, 21:51
If they released 5 acts with every character, I would be quite tempted :)
Thunderchild
17-10-2008, 20:24
If there was new content? sure.
Heck, I was willing to pay for LoD for just the fifth act+neat stuff.
What amuses me is that people never thought to consider that Blizzard could have easily release Sc2 with just 10 missions per race. And then simply create 2 new XP's along the way- and you know what? people would have been -thrilled-!
That's a classic example as to how people prefer to whine than think.
Gigashadow
17-10-2008, 21:09
5 is a bit too much games for me to buy... I'd wait for the 5th one and buy that lol or wait for some package that is cheaper...
Apocalypse
17-10-2008, 22:31
5 is a bit too much games for me to buy... I'd wait for the 5th one and buy that lol or wait for some package that is cheaper...
this is what i did with EQ
whiteboi
18-10-2008, 01:29
Yeah, i think the OP is blowing it fairly out of proportion. Blizzard has also said that each Starcraft II campaign will be cheaper.
redground
18-10-2008, 02:28
there should be 2 games.
Game and Expantion.
Why wouldn't you buy it? It's just more content, you capitalist.
I don't mind paying, I just want them to put the most content 'cus I'll obviously play this for the rest of my life. 250$ is nothing compared in what you can make in a lifetime.
Sylvanite
19-10-2008, 01:53
I agree with the others who have said that I would be absolutely ECSTATIC if they released a full game for EACH Diablo 3 character, but the very first one came with what you basically needed to play a generic campaign online with any class....
Think about that for a second....it would be AWESOME. Plus, you would actually have motivation and a real reason to try every character. I can only wish Blizzard would do that.
Apocalypse
19-10-2008, 19:59
I agree with the others who have said that I would be absolutely ECSTATIC if they released a full game for EACH Diablo 3 character, but the very first one came with what you basically needed to play a generic campaign online with any class....
Think about that for a second....it would be AWESOME. Plus, you would actually have motivation and a real reason to try every character. I can only wish Blizzard would do that.
imo it would all be based on how good the actual story was. if each expansion came with a top of the line story for the char then it would be worth it imo
Catchafire
19-10-2008, 20:35
Next thing you know, videogame companis are going to charge $100+ for games because "we" all can afford it. I never knew the Diablo community was so "rich."
Gigashadow
19-10-2008, 20:40
I would pay more for games if only I could pay less off taxes, health insurance, car insurance, mortgage, gas, college education... *trails off*
We pay much more than deserves to be paid. The true cost of items is much lower than what we pay for them. It is sheepish to allow companies to drain money from us, especially considering they do not let us rent the games or guarantee quality.
Sylvanite
19-10-2008, 21:43
Video games are one of the best "bang for your buck" entertainment deals around. Compare the amount of hours of entertainment you get, to the money you spend, and try to find another activity that matches that.....seriously. Even just having cable tv is about as expensive as buying anew video game every month. Movies? 10 dollars per 2 hours of entertainment? Books (even paperback at about $7 per 7 hours of entertainment, much more than that for hardcover right when a book comes out), tickets to sporting events or concerts, gas to drive places?
Very little compares to video games in how much you spend per hour of entertainment you get. So, are we paying more than we have to sometimes? Maybe. Is it still a pretty good deal, in relative terms? Yeah, it really is.
Gigashadow
19-10-2008, 22:14
How about games that totally and utterly suck? Movies have services like Netflix and Blockbuster. I can also rewatch a few movies, and think about them, which is pretty big. Books can be found in a library. Again, you can think about a book and its meaning. A book and a movie can often give you a lot of extra content that's outside the measure of the duration of enjoyment of it. I don't remember thinking about games, though. Maybe Witcher...
Games are a cat in a sack, from the legal perspective... that's their problem.
xenoterracide
21-10-2008, 03:16
just so long as it doesn't become an intentional Dawn of War like scenario. Basically in DoW they added 2 new races in each expansion, expansions were stand alone. you could play all races single player that were in that game and came before. but for mp you had to have a key from previous games to play those races. So what if they made you buy the expansion to play zerg online? or if you want to play the wizard you have to buy the wizard expansion. I'm talking like 1 race per expansion here.
I don't much like this split each race campaign into expansions btw. I do learn how to use a race from single player campaigns, if they do add new units this probably means by the time we get to protoss I won't be able to ever have the new terran units in the terran campaign. This is another aspect of DoW I didn't like only 2 races ever really had normal campaigns SM and IG, the rest you learned from skirmish like maps, which have too much going on to really learn from imho.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.