Pictures of the stuff included in the CE
http://news.bigdownload.com/photos/starcraft-2-collectors-edition-contents-pictures/full/#2877525
http://news.bigdownload.com/photos/starcraft-2-collectors-edition-contents-pictures/full/#2877525
StarCraft II
- Thread starter Kantham
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
It's not a higher price point considering the cost of the previous games.
This is one of the few games that are actually worth the money they are asking for it considering what you get for your money. This is also coming from a person who will play the hell out of the MP. With you really only looking at the single player I can see where you aren't wanting to spend 60 or even 50 on the game considering much of the worth of the game is going to be the polished battle.net system along with the hundreds of thousands or even millions of people playing online.
Either way very few companies if any besides Valve support their games to the level Blizzard does.
Last edited:
I already said I got Warcraft 3 for $50 right after it came out. $60 > $50. What I don't remember is where I got it and if there was some kind of promotion on it at the time. But I can say I've never spent $60 on a Blizzard game.
Is it? I played the crap out of Left 4 Dead, UT2003, UT2004, Supreme Commander, Borderlands... I wouldn't have spent $60 on ANY of these games.
It's still ambiguous what that level of support is. A patch after 10 years doesn't consistently constitute support, likewise a patch after 1 day doesn't either.
Epic doesn't support their games for decades, but they do give excellent support in the short term on all of their game. Much better than nearly any other game developer... but I wouldn't spend $60 on any Epic game, either.
I can't believe the idiots who pay $60 for a PC game. It's an inflated price and not worth it.
~Jason
~Jason
It's $10 more you cheap asses, easily affordable difference from $50 and definitely worth it. I'm not saying I don't agree with not buying, but price isn't the reason, it's the act of them trying to milk us for our money when $50 has been an established price.
It isn't that the $10 is a ton of money, it is that it is a surcharge that is only there because they know the game will be popular and they can get away with bilking people. I cannot believe that people are willing to just jump in to such a fray. It is an invitation for all publishers to adopt a $60 price point.
~Jason
~Jason
Last edited:
But that still doesn't change the fact that the game still had a $60 base price.
Is it? I played the crap out of Left 4 Dead, UT2003, UT2004, Supreme Commander, Borderlands... I wouldn't have spent $60 on ANY of these games.[/quote]
That is a moot point since you can't go back in time and actually see if you would have spent $60 on them.
I'm going to say it does. I think most people will agree with me that a company that continuously patches a game they put out for 12 years makes that company have good game support. Enough to keep the price tag at what they have been selling their non-MMORPGs and expansion packs at.
Once again I'm going to have to say moot point. We'll never know if you would have paid $60 for a UT game or not.
You didn't read anything past where someone said it was going to be $60 did you. How can it be inflated it the price tag has always been $60.
I don't know if it did or not. We have one picture of a game from Best Buy. Not exactly a great authority on MSRP.
You know because I am telling you right now. I have never, and will never, buy a PC game for $60. Ever.
They HAVEN'T continuously patched it for 12 years, though. Since 2001, Blizzard has released approximately one patch per year. I'll say that again with emphasis: One patch per year. I don't know about you, but I kind of think 10 patches up front is better than 10 patches over 10 years. I'll be fair here and point out that it has really been 16 patches over 12 years, however the first six patches were released between February 1998 and November 1999.
So I would exactly call their history of support for Starcraft consistent or continuous. And I hardly think that releasing a patch that removes a CD check and fixes some serious exploits that have existed in the game for 12 years justifies the outrageous inflation taking place on their extremely old games.
If you're going to buy it, fine. I'll likely wait until it is within a reasonable price range before I buy instead of being one of the first adopters suckered into buying it at the inflated price.
I'm sorry, but..what the hell? 16 Patches over 12 years is not consistent? How many games do you know that even HAVE 16 patches?
The only one I can think of is WoW. Also by Blizzard.
Last edited:
There are Valve games that have at least that many patches, and it really comes down to the size of the patches. UT3 Patch 2.0 had as many changes as the last 8 Starcraft patches.
When UT2k3 came out I bought it for maybe $30-$40. However, the real cost to me was actually much higher because I bought a $900 machine for the sole purpose of playing that one game. It was totally worth it because we played that game 2 hours a day, every day, for almost two years.
When I sit down with StarCraft 2 beta I usually end up playing it 8-10 hours at a time! That might not be every day, but that's just because I usually wait for a 2v2 partner to come online. In my view this is likely to be the most significant multiplayer games for the next decade. It's easily worth $60.
At the same time however it irks me that publishers are trying to push the price point up. I remember back when $60 was normal for a big name PC game. I also remember when a brand new SNES game would run you $80 or more. The price came down because the marketplace simply couldn't handle that. Seems like publishers are trying to make another push to bring it back up, but I just don't see it working.
When I sit down with StarCraft 2 beta I usually end up playing it 8-10 hours at a time! That might not be every day, but that's just because I usually wait for a 2v2 partner to come online. In my view this is likely to be the most significant multiplayer games for the next decade. It's easily worth $60.
At the same time however it irks me that publishers are trying to push the price point up. I remember back when $60 was normal for a big name PC game. I also remember when a brand new SNES game would run you $80 or more. The price came down because the marketplace simply couldn't handle that. Seems like publishers are trying to make another push to bring it back up, but I just don't see it working.
Except that $900 machine worked for a lot more than just one game, so it wasn't really part of the value of the game. Plus, we played UT2003 for way more than 2 hours a day
I don't know if it will or not. You enjoy it a lot, but I can't really play ANY game for that long. I played SupCom 2 for about 4 hours the other day and I was really feeling like I needed something else. I've had the same thing happen with Left 4 Dead and lots of other games.
Personally, I think Starcraft 2 will have plenty of people playing it, but it will go about the same as old Blizzard games. Nobody will talk about how many people are playing it, nobody will care how many people are playing it (aside from the people actually playing it), and plenty of people will not be playing it.
Right, and Valve was mentioned by Defeat originally, as well.
UT3 patch 2.0 has as many changes for reasons we all know: the community was SEVERELY lacking and goodwill was needed to get the game its original fans back. Also, lots more to fix, wasn't there?
SC was patched as was necessary. Several exploits weren't found until years into the lifetime of the game. The serious bugs were mostly fixed after the first years, after that it was just feature additions and balance fixes.
The reason some units still have dumb AI is because the game was never really programmed in an open way, so it's not possible to alter some things without rewriting whole parts of the code. (Also the reason why there aren't that many SC mods)
Also, there was an entire pro scene holding back micro-related bugs such as these.
You can keep playing devil's advocate all you want, but Blizzard is almost globally regarded as a company with excellent support and they have the history to back it up. If Blizz left SC in a buggy or unbalanced state, there wouldn't be an entire industry depending on it 12 years after its launch.
Last edited:
That of course depends on your perspective. I don't see an RTS of any kind (even one as good as Starcraft) pulling an excessive number of players from Shooters or MMO's. The hardcore players in those genres are different kind of gamers. I like RTS's as "break time" games when I just want to relax with a game.
Will this SC be as successful as the last? I think so, based on what I've seen. Will this SC break new ground in the genre and find a way to appeal to gamers who don't traditionally enjoy this type of game. I highly doubt that. In fact from the leaked beta, I really don't see anything drastically different in terms of gameplay mechanics that hasn't existed before in another game. Well, maybe the Zerg's Birth Queen ability to have sex with the hive every 30 secs or whatever, but thats just wierd.
My point wasn't that Blizzard is supporting Starcraft badly, but you can't really claim they are giving the game tons of support after 12 years, because they aren't. They are giving it nominal support, and likely some of that is simply to garner attention. Regardless of the latter supposition, they still aren't doing anything outrageous like releasing game changing patches 5 years later. We could just as likely say the developers of Aliens vs. Predator 2000 has supported their game for a decade because they released a remake with Steam integration
It wasn't patched as necessary, it was patched however Blizzard wanted. Most of the exploit fixes in the last two patch series were known for several years before being fixed.
I never said Blizzard leaves their games in a buggy state. I already mentioned the level of polish they give their games in a previous post. What I'm arguing is this popular Blizzard fanboy talking point that Blizzard releasing small patches every year for a decade is somehow better than the developers that release several large patches right after the game launches and means Blizzard gives their games better support than other developers.
That's not to say they have bad or average support. They are definitely riding above the curve on that. But there are lots of other developers who give their games good support and to ignore that is simply foolish.