StarCraft II Trilogy makes "Worst **** moves ever pulled by gamers" list

[Gifted]

Sorry Gifted, God has spoken. You are not a true fan. You should resign from your position as SCL Staff before things get ugly.

Cute idea... but that would bring about a great disturbance in the force...

No topic is complete without dustinbrowder's misplaced opinion forcing.

@Tychus: While I know you were intending to be witty.. it borders on flamebaiting. Talk about the subject and discussion, not the qualities of another individual you may disagree with.

@Everyone: I'd like to not see any more posts like this in the thread. This warning is to all individuals posting here.

[GnaReffotsirk]

My entire person will collapse if a monthly subscription be required after LoTV.

Do you think this is possible?

Don Vito Corleone where are you?

[dustinbrowder]

My entire person will collapse if a monthly subscription be required after LoTV.

Do you think this is possible?

Don Vito Corleone where are you?

If that happens it would be suicide by blizzard, so its safe to say no.

[TheEconomist]

They make more money from eSports than they would from charging a subscription fee.

[hyde]

I'm usually a naysayer on StarCraft II.

But you know guys, this time, be "objective".
SC2 has more than enough to warrant it a $59 price tag, especially in TODAYS day and age. A Call of Duty game comes bugged, no SDK, no modding tools, full 59-69$ Price tag and only lasts one year.
And this is technically from the same god damn company too, just "across" the street so to speak. Hell it costed me 59$ for Street Fighter 4, what did I get? A half assed game only to be completed later on by a 39$ price tag for SUPER Street Fighter 4.

Be reasonable guys, the game still had 29 missions - it was obvious some parts were lacking in the single player but they delivered on the multiplayer.
But I will say that the game's singleplayer felt "Fillered" with random crap to make the count to 29. It was quality filler, but filler none the less. I know we're the "Marshal" around these parts, but between fighting the Dominion, getting "High" off protoss artifacts, and uninfesting your true love - do we really have time to be f'ing around with Colonists in a "Space Opera" ? I think there was enough "casual time" given the Tosh/Nova missions and stealing Odin.

[Wankey]

I dunno what to really say. Multiplayer is pretty well done, Single player is a joke and Battle.net 2.0 is absolutely tragic.

However, there are still 2 pretty big expansions to come out so I'm holding out to good balanace, great choice of maps to play on and extra units + better design down the road.

Single player will have to remain a load of crap.

[YourockLoL]

One simple paragraph:
They just want our money , notthing else, they had like 10 years to make the full game,they couldn't release 3 in 1? seriously? same thing with WoW , i played vanilla , and burning crusade , but i can't afford expansions that cost more than the original game itself, an expansion should be an addition to the game , so it shouldn't cost more than the game itself... and they added a monthly fee aswell, so WTF? i quit wow, and with starcraft is happening the same thing: campaings are good , but short , they just make you taste it and then take it away so you have to pay more for the full experience when it comes out.

edit: watch wow going higher with each expansion pack and lucky those who their current coin is the dollar , the full WoW is Half of your salary here.

[TheEconomist]

World of WarCraft didn't start out at 20$. It's 20$ now because it's older whereas the other expansions are new.

Also, releasing three games for the price of one is financial suicide.

[Quirel]

I'm with Tychus here.
I wouldn't be surprised if the long development cycle of StarCraft II made it one of the most expensive AAA games out there, and yet it still costs as much as the annual CoD game.

Splitting one game into three? There's probably about three games of development that will go into each, with more support than the average game company/publisher bothers with.

Just doing it to make money? Of course they're doing it to make money! I may love history and love to be a historian, but if I can't make a living at it, I won't do it. Companies are the same way; you just have to decide "Was this worth what they made me pay?"

Wings of Liberty, IN SPITE OF its flaws, was worth $60, to me. I'll judge the other games as they come out, but please don't make the mistake of judging the book before you even see its color.

[MulletBen]

with starcraft is happening the same thing: campaings are good , but short , they just make you taste it and then take it away so you have to pay more for the full experience when it comes out.

SC Vanilla, BW, and WoL all have about 30 missions each; where did you get the idea that the WoL campaign is short? Short compared to single player focused games, perhaps, but well within the norm for a Blizzard strategy title.