Do any of those have as many expansions as WoW? If not, you are reducing the amount of content that can be produced. Who would pay to play guild wars?
Starcraft->Insurrection->Retribution->Brood War
WoW->BC->WoTLK
The answer is yes. So no, the amount of content is not being reduced.
In answer to your second question, they chose the expansion model because first, its their first game, and difficult to justify a P2P system on an MMO from a startup company. Second, they didn't want to compete with WoW directly, seeing as it had been established for quite some time already.
It would be like some well received Indie movie trying to compete with the Dark Knight on release day.
Now IF Guild Wars was more involved, with persistent worlds, a profession system and other refinements as found in WoW, they could very easily charge a P2P system. But the critical difference is GW wasn't designed from the outset as a persistent state MMO, but an instanced PvE/PvP vehicle.
I'm not denying that the expansions to those games added a few nice satisfying campaigns, several new units and what not. I'm just placing them in comparison to WoW expansions.
Sigh. As am I. The expansions were the same scope as the original in size. Comparing them directly to a different game from a different genre that has hundreds of millions of dollars for development is foolish at best, intentionally misleading at worst.
Small? Outland and Northrend are pretty big, they add ALOT of gameplay. And the storyline in WoW is basically continuous through the expansions in a sense. Do you follow the wow lore and story?
Compared to the size of Azeroth? Relative to the original's size, the expansions are small in scope. I'm not a lore geek, but I do know the storyline is contiguous. Not sure what you're trying to get at there, since my comparison stated as much.
And Sure you may argue that wow is an mmo, but look at Starcraft 2 -- see nows thats something. 28-32 hours of gameplay per campaign, thats alot of content.
I paid $49.99 for Morrowind/Oblivion/Diablo 2. All three games served up hundreds if not thousands of hours of playtime. SC2's split into 3 separate releases is nothing more than a money making vehicle.
Now I highly doubt Diabo 3 would be pay to play... but if it were.. I'm sure Blizzard would definitly deliver. We'd see alot more content, we'd have more support, more perks, a more secure battle.net, and the list goes on. Maybe it wouldnt be exactly 15 dollars a month, since its the scope of the game is not that of an mmo like wow, but we'd be seeing were our money is going.
Yes, into the pockets of developers and corporate who know they have a soft, pliable playerbase who will accept whatever bones are thrown to them. Whether its MMO streaming or standalone expansions, the business model for both includes profit. Everything you cited is included as part of the development cycle and costs, I really wish people would stop discussing things they have no knowledge of.
And well maybe some of the extra additions that the Diablo 3 team is adding to battle.net specifically for diablo 3 are just outside of Blizzard's Diablo 3 budget. I'm sure the features they monetize wont be game breaking, or unreasonably expensive. Jay wilson said "we kindof have to" for a reason.
Diablo 3's budget? Do you honestly think that the profits from WoW are solely funneled into WoW only? Get a clue, or take a business management course, then come back and post rationally. He said they have to because the corporate nature develops greed, and they see an opportunity to empty our pockets, they're not friggin' Oliver Twist!
Also, this might be irrelevent to your point, I just wanted to point out that in a recent interveiw with Rob Pardo, he said that they're currently looking at 8 players for game size. 4 Players was for the demo.
We'll see. In other interviews its been stated that the 4 player size was due to graphical intensity and server strain apparently. Would be nice to get some official input on that.
I paid $49.99 for Morrowind/Oblivion/Diablo 2. All three games served up hundreds if not thousands of hours of playtime. SC2's split into 3 separate releases is nothing more than a money making vehicle.
They will profit more form this decision, but you have to remember, each of these is a full sized game. They aren't releasing 10 missions for each race and charging full price for each installment, they are releasing games which have 30 missions for a choice race. Which means each are as long as the original Starcraft game, with full multiplayer, and new mechanics. All in all when you combine the total amount of missions offered Starcraft II will be three times as long as the original. So I think it's fair if we have to pay three times as much to have the game. The other alternative would be to wait even longer and have them release the full game, with all 90 missions and pay 150$ for that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't try to be a great man, just be a man... and let history make its own judgment. -Zefram Cochrane, Star Trek
Sigh. As am I. The expansions were the same scope as the original in size. Comparing them directly to a different game from a different genre that has hundreds of millions of dollars for development is foolish at best, intentionally misleading at worst.
Compared to the size of Azeroth? Relative to the original's size, the expansions are small in scope. I'm not a lore geek, but I do know the storyline is contiguous. Not sure what you're trying to get at there, since my comparison stated as much.
I'm not trying to mislead. And while the lands that WOTLK and TBC added aren't as big compared to the lands provided in original wow, they each provide tons of gameplay hours, almost equal to the gameplay you can get from the lands of original WoW, if you play it all, and depending on how much you do arena's and raid.
I paid $49.99 for Morrowind/Oblivion/Diablo 2. All three games served up hundreds if not thousands of hours of playtime. SC2's split into 3 separate releases is nothing more than a money making vehicle.
Well you have to consider battle.net as well. For those playing SC2 on battle.net, you'll get hundreds of hours of gameplay just from that alone, + the 90 hours or so gameplay from the campaigns (which, if blizzard hadn't made that move, it wouldn't be 90 hours.. or it would be 90 hours but would be released all in 2011.) And cant I now turn around and say that YOU'RE comparing an RTS to an RPG? RPGs which you can replay with different characters, that have much more depth, that has tons of player made DLC that can add more gameplay hours, and have complex character building systems and etc. Not to mention that Morrowind, Oblivion, and Diablo 2 are three totally separate and complete games, wheras the second and third parts to Starcraft 2 are not.
Yes, into the pockets of developers and corporate who know they have a soft, pliable playerbase who will accept whatever bones are thrown to them. Whether its MMO streaming or standalone expansions, the business model for both includes profit. Everything you cited is included as part of the development cycle and costs, I really wish people would stop discussing things they have no knowledge of.
Diablo 3's budget? Do you honestly think that the profits from WoW are solely funneled into WoW only? Get a clue, or take a business management course, then come back and post rationally. He said they have to because the corporate nature develops greed, and they see an opportunity to empty our pockets, they're not friggin' Oliver Twist!
I'm fully aware that the profits from WoW go towards ALOT of things, which have all been outlined by other people many times before. However, I'm sure they have a certain budget they don't want to go over for Diablo 3, unless they can reimburse themselves. You act as if the profits from WoW are supposed to or intended to cover EVERYTHING that Blizzard does, and that they should be content with that.
We'll see. In other interviews its been stated that the 4 player size was due to graphical intensity and server strain apparently. Would be nice to get some official input on that.
1. There will be no fees or microtransactions that involve gameplay or its content. Source can be found on this forum as of today for those who bothered to check in between starting hate-train threads.
2. Noone said each SC2 entry will cost $50. That part that we DO know is that each of them will have the complete Multiplayer support, and a Single Player campaign that is as long as all three campaigns from the previous game combined (90 missions total).
8 Pages already? LOCK THIS SHIT IF YOU KNOW MERCY.......
1. pay to play is not included in the diablo game
2. sc2 was made into 3 games not to leech more money off of fans. you will still get what you pay for. they stated they are looking at around 40 quests per race, which is more then either sc or brood war had. splitting it into 3 games will let them release it sooner and make the stories and gameplay better.
if you arent interested in the story then fine. go buy version 1, then just play multiplayer.
To make 40 quests with the same game engine, graphics, sounds, doodads, and balanced units completed should take... what, 1-2 months? They said it could take more than a year in between each release. I fail to see how making 30-40 quests with the same game is going to take a year.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What is normal? Normal is a concept that everyone or a majority of people are the same or similar. However, we know that everyone is unique. If everyone is unique, then everyone is different. If everyone is different, then everyone is weird. If everyone is weird, then everyone is normal.
Yep, three campaigns, three games. Each will be sold separately and apart. I'm assuming 2-3 months in between each game.
uh if thats true and starcraft 2 is realeased earrly 09 then diablo 3 gets released in between sc 2 and its first expansion eb cause acoording to jay diablo 3 will be released before the first expansion comes out
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
And if Blizzard even dares to look at Oblivionesque "we hold back content to then make you pay extra for it in very tiny pieces" for D3 then i think the time has come to erase the name Blizzard off of my list.
So wait, the game SC2 will be costing a grand total of 150 monies? Oh boy, can i hear some money groping?
And if Blizzard even dares to look at Oblivionesque "we hold back content to then make you pay extra for it in very tiny pieces" for D3 then i think the time has come to erase the name Blizzard off of my list.
They said they haven't talked about pricing at all yet... I would imagine that they would charge the first one as a full game, and the second and third as expansions. And its not like they have the content for the other two campaigns, they haven't even started on it yet. They're going to be one year apart, and each will feature 28-32 hours of gameplay.
And If you search this forum you'll see that in an interview with Rob Pardo, Rob said that they will only be monetizing battle.net features that won't be in the game, such as realm transfers and name changes.
To make 40 quests with the same game engine, graphics, sounds, doodads, and balanced units completed should take... what, 1-2 months? They said it could take more than a year in between each release. I fail to see how making 30-40 quests with the same game is going to take a year.
reasons that they will take awhile to release
1. story
2. designing each level
if you have ever used campaign editor u would know how long it takes to make even a crappy 2d level. none the less designing and making a few dozen highly defined levels.
if you have such an issue with it, wait 3 years till they release all 3 in a specaial reduced price package.
You don't even know what kinds of features they'll be monetizing. It's people like you that stop games from moving forward. As I said before, gaming is not a damn charity, its a business and things change. Imagine how much more it's going to cost Blizzard to make the three versions of starcraft, featuring 28-32 hours of gameplay per campaign. They chose to do that, as opposed to just releasing the whole game in 2009, with watered down campaigns. And you said worse and worse games, since when have Blizzard games been bad?
Gee, they didn't have three separate and awesome campaigns in starcraft and brood war, all in the same package did they? DURRRRRR
Your argument is completely idiotic. The "Three versions of starcraft" are the three campaigns that should be included in the single game, for a single price. I am absolutely shocked at how badly people want to give blizzard more money for worse games.
And btw, Blizzard games have been trash since Warcraft 3, the initial blow to the warcraft franchise. WoW was the nail in the coffin for warcraft. Diablo 3 is the hinge; if they continue to fuck it up this badly, they will not only ruin the diablo franchise. It'll be the last stroke severing the blizzard we knew and loved from the money grubbing, mediocre gaming company it is becoming.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
zsfh-maz of UsWest, 95 BvB king
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
It better be worth it though and not simply "some more quests".
Well basically.. they're bringing out "Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty" in 2009... and it will feature the Terran campaign and it will also feature multiplayer (which will feature all races.) They said they'll start work on the Zerg campaign as the terran campaign comes to a close, and release the Zerg campaign a year or so later when they finish. Starcraft II: Heart of the Swarm will feature that Zerg campaign and, they said, will also feature some additions to multiplayers (such as maps an units) and will work as their other expansions have (Such as TFT.) Same goes for the protoss campaign... they'll start work on it as the zerg campaign comes to a close, and will release it in a year when its done, along with some multiplayer additions and extra features.
And they said each campaign will feature about 30 missions, and 28-32 hours of gameplay.
To me it sounds like it's worth it, but I guess thats just my opinion.
Your argument is completely idiotic. The "Three versions of starcraft" are the three campaigns that should be included in the single game, for a single price. I am absolutely shocked at how badly people want to give blizzard more money for worse games.
They could include all three campaigns in a single game, but then we'd have to wait until 2011 to get it. They haven't even started work on the Zerg or Protoss campaigns, and seeing as they said there would be about a year in between each game, if they were to make it one package and keep the same scope of the game... it would have been 2011. They just want to let us have the multiplayer sooner, and have the first campaign ready to go.
And they did originally intend for SCII to have two expansions, well.. now they're going with this approach. So instead of expansions we get this.
And btw, Blizzard games have been trash since Warcraft 3, the initial blow to the warcraft franchise. WoW was the nail in the coffin for warcraft. Diablo 3 is the hinge; if they continue to fuck it up this badly, they will not only ruin the diablo franchise. It'll be the last stroke severing the blizzard we knew and loved from the money grubbing, mediocre gaming company it is becoming.
YOU may not have liked WoW, or maybe MMO's are not your type of game, but that doesn't make it trash. And Diablo 3 is fine, people are just over-reacting... sure there's somethings we disagree with (like I disagree with respecs and auto-stats), but we should wait and see how the game is before we start calling it bad. They're doing it for a reason.
wait a second! Your telling me blizzard announced a pay to play feature? Can someone show me where they said this? I know it may be something small, but still....I HATE P2P!!! Frikkin industry nowadays. Just give me the game i paid for then you can release an expansion pack or two down the road.
wait a second! Your telling me blizzard announced a pay to play feature? Can someone show me where they said this? I know it may be something small, but still....I HATE P2P!!! Frikkin industry nowadays. Just give me the game i paid for then you can release an expansion pack or two down the road.
Look around on the forum. It was confirmed.. no P2P.
Starcraft->Insurrection->Retribution->Brood War
WoW->BC->WoTLK
The answer is yes. So no, the amount of content is not being reduced.
In answer to your second question, they chose the expansion model because first, its their first game, and difficult to justify a P2P system on an MMO from a startup company. Second, they didn't want to compete with WoW directly, seeing as it had been established for quite some time already.
It would be like some well received Indie movie trying to compete with the Dark Knight on release day.
Now IF Guild Wars was more involved, with persistent worlds, a profession system and other refinements as found in WoW, they could very easily charge a P2P system. But the critical difference is GW wasn't designed from the outset as a persistent state MMO, but an instanced PvE/PvP vehicle.
Thinking is your friend.
Sigh. As am I. The expansions were the same scope as the original in size. Comparing them directly to a different game from a different genre that has hundreds of millions of dollars for development is foolish at best, intentionally misleading at worst.
Compared to the size of Azeroth? Relative to the original's size, the expansions are small in scope. I'm not a lore geek, but I do know the storyline is contiguous. Not sure what you're trying to get at there, since my comparison stated as much.
I paid $49.99 for Morrowind/Oblivion/Diablo 2. All three games served up hundreds if not thousands of hours of playtime. SC2's split into 3 separate releases is nothing more than a money making vehicle.
Yes, into the pockets of developers and corporate who know they have a soft, pliable playerbase who will accept whatever bones are thrown to them. Whether its MMO streaming or standalone expansions, the business model for both includes profit. Everything you cited is included as part of the development cycle and costs, I really wish people would stop discussing things they have no knowledge of.
Diablo 3's budget? Do you honestly think that the profits from WoW are solely funneled into WoW only? Get a clue, or take a business management course, then come back and post rationally. He said they have to because the corporate nature develops greed, and they see an opportunity to empty our pockets, they're not friggin' Oliver Twist!
We'll see. In other interviews its been stated that the 4 player size was due to graphical intensity and server strain apparently. Would be nice to get some official input on that.
They will profit more form this decision, but you have to remember, each of these is a full sized game. They aren't releasing 10 missions for each race and charging full price for each installment, they are releasing games which have 30 missions for a choice race. Which means each are as long as the original Starcraft game, with full multiplayer, and new mechanics. All in all when you combine the total amount of missions offered Starcraft II will be three times as long as the original. So I think it's fair if we have to pay three times as much to have the game. The other alternative would be to wait even longer and have them release the full game, with all 90 missions and pay 150$ for that.
I'm not trying to mislead. And while the lands that WOTLK and TBC added aren't as big compared to the lands provided in original wow, they each provide tons of gameplay hours, almost equal to the gameplay you can get from the lands of original WoW, if you play it all, and depending on how much you do arena's and raid.
Well you have to consider battle.net as well. For those playing SC2 on battle.net, you'll get hundreds of hours of gameplay just from that alone, + the 90 hours or so gameplay from the campaigns (which, if blizzard hadn't made that move, it wouldn't be 90 hours.. or it would be 90 hours but would be released all in 2011.) And cant I now turn around and say that YOU'RE comparing an RTS to an RPG? RPGs which you can replay with different characters, that have much more depth, that has tons of player made DLC that can add more gameplay hours, and have complex character building systems and etc. Not to mention that Morrowind, Oblivion, and Diablo 2 are three totally separate and complete games, wheras the second and third parts to Starcraft 2 are not.
I'm fully aware that the profits from WoW go towards ALOT of things, which have all been outlined by other people many times before. However, I'm sure they have a certain budget they don't want to go over for Diablo 3, unless they can reimburse themselves. You act as if the profits from WoW are supposed to or intended to cover EVERYTHING that Blizzard does, and that they should be content with that.
http://pc.ign.com/articles/919/919059p1.html
sure they may have been authorized by Blizzard to be made but they did not make them.
2. Noone said each SC2 entry will cost $50. That part that we DO know is that each of them will have the complete Multiplayer support, and a Single Player campaign that is as long as all three campaigns from the previous game combined (90 missions total).
8 Pages already? LOCK THIS SHIT IF YOU KNOW MERCY.......
2. sc2 was made into 3 games not to leech more money off of fans. you will still get what you pay for. they stated they are looking at around 40 quests per race, which is more then either sc or brood war had. splitting it into 3 games will let them release it sooner and make the stories and gameplay better.
if you arent interested in the story then fine. go buy version 1, then just play multiplayer.
--Steel :cool:
uh if thats true and starcraft 2 is realeased earrly 09 then diablo 3 gets released in between sc 2 and its first expansion eb cause acoording to jay diablo 3 will be released before the first expansion comes out
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
They said they haven't talked about pricing at all yet... I would imagine that they would charge the first one as a full game, and the second and third as expansions. And its not like they have the content for the other two campaigns, they haven't even started on it yet. They're going to be one year apart, and each will feature 28-32 hours of gameplay.
And If you search this forum you'll see that in an interview with Rob Pardo, Rob said that they will only be monetizing battle.net features that won't be in the game, such as realm transfers and name changes.
reasons that they will take awhile to release
1. story
2. designing each level
if you have ever used campaign editor u would know how long it takes to make even a crappy 2d level. none the less designing and making a few dozen highly defined levels.
if you have such an issue with it, wait 3 years till they release all 3 in a specaial reduced price package.
Gee, they didn't have three separate and awesome campaigns in starcraft and brood war, all in the same package did they? DURRRRRR
Your argument is completely idiotic. The "Three versions of starcraft" are the three campaigns that should be included in the single game, for a single price. I am absolutely shocked at how badly people want to give blizzard more money for worse games.
And btw, Blizzard games have been trash since Warcraft 3, the initial blow to the warcraft franchise. WoW was the nail in the coffin for warcraft. Diablo 3 is the hinge; if they continue to fuck it up this badly, they will not only ruin the diablo franchise. It'll be the last stroke severing the blizzard we knew and loved from the money grubbing, mediocre gaming company it is becoming.
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
Well basically.. they're bringing out "Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty" in 2009... and it will feature the Terran campaign and it will also feature multiplayer (which will feature all races.) They said they'll start work on the Zerg campaign as the terran campaign comes to a close, and release the Zerg campaign a year or so later when they finish. Starcraft II: Heart of the Swarm will feature that Zerg campaign and, they said, will also feature some additions to multiplayers (such as maps an units) and will work as their other expansions have (Such as TFT.) Same goes for the protoss campaign... they'll start work on it as the zerg campaign comes to a close, and will release it in a year when its done, along with some multiplayer additions and extra features.
And they said each campaign will feature about 30 missions, and 28-32 hours of gameplay.
To me it sounds like it's worth it, but I guess thats just my opinion.
They could include all three campaigns in a single game, but then we'd have to wait until 2011 to get it. They haven't even started work on the Zerg or Protoss campaigns, and seeing as they said there would be about a year in between each game, if they were to make it one package and keep the same scope of the game... it would have been 2011. They just want to let us have the multiplayer sooner, and have the first campaign ready to go.
And they did originally intend for SCII to have two expansions, well.. now they're going with this approach. So instead of expansions we get this.
YOU may not have liked WoW, or maybe MMO's are not your type of game, but that doesn't make it trash. And Diablo 3 is fine, people are just over-reacting... sure there's somethings we disagree with (like I disagree with respecs and auto-stats), but we should wait and see how the game is before we start calling it bad. They're doing it for a reason.
you dont like anything though
just because its not diablo2 2 you hate it.
plz, go away
Look around on the forum. It was confirmed.. no P2P.