Starcraft 2 Special edition is a wee bit pricey.

[ROFLbanshee]

Does anyone find it odd how the CE comes with the original StarCraft? I mean, the only people who are likely to buy this are the fans who already have it (and WoW players who want the Thor pet).

[pure.Wasted]

Does anyone find it odd how the CE comes with the original StarCraft? I mean, the only people who are likely to buy this are the fans who already have it (and WoW players who want the Thor pet).

Did only WC2 players buy WC3?

That's ridiculous.

[Nicol Bolas]

It is true, in point of fact, because I have approached both M$ and Sony in my quest of being a game developer and learned of the up-front, and continuing, cost of being a third-party developer.

I'm well aware that Sony and Microsoft (On "M$") charge money for selling games. They always have. What I doubt is your assertion that this is the sole reason for $60 console games this generation.

The fact of the matter is that making games is cheaper now than it has ever been. Don't believe me? Unity 3D is FREE to use unless you make more than a certain amount of money per year.

No; making mid-grade games is cheaper than ever. Making high-end games has never been more expensive. You can point at however many free game engines you want; that's not the hard part of making games. The expensive part are the people using them: the game designers, programmers, and artists.

Instead, video game companies spend countless man-hours, countless management-inflated hours, to create in-house engines when a cheaper, third-party engine can be readily available to do whatever they need done. In some very few cases an in-house engine really is necessary.

With no support, of course. So if it breaks, you're SOL in a codebase you don't know or understand that was likely put together by monkeys (or at least code monkeys).

I've been there, and let me tell you: it sucks. It is not conducive to making good games. The reason why these companies don't use freeware engines is because freeware isn't free; there's always a cost. That cost is development time and the happiness and well-being of your programmers.

Elementary, my dear Watson: you figure out how to reduce the cost of making the product.

The only way to do that with videogames is to make less product. To make a game with less graphics, fewer levels, poor story, or whatever. This is not conducive to making high-end games. You can get away with that at the casual or indie level. But not if you're making something serious.

But if that were truly the reason, game prices would have been $60 about three years ago.

They were $60 3 years ago. Just not on PC.

Activision is the only company right now charging $60 for PC games, and they did it because of the idiocy of their CEO who went on record as saying he wouldn't lower the PC price.

Why is that idiocy? If I make a game, I get to price it however much I want, right? If the market will bear $60, then $60 it will be. That's capitalism.

SC2 was made for the PC alone. That means it has none of the extra costs associated with making a multi-platform game.

Which shows how little you understand about PC games.

Ignoring the fact that it's a PC and MacOSX game (and therefore multiplatform by any definition), every PC game is multiplatform. It has to run on AMD and Intel CPUs, which can necessitate CPU-specific assembly optimizations. It has to run on NVIDIA and ATi GPUs, of multiple generations and versions of graphics drivers. Developers have to test it on all of these hardware configurations to make sure that it works and is stable. They have to test it on WinXP, Vista x32, Vista x64, Win7 x32 and Win7 x64.

Or, you can just put stuff out there and hope that it works. But that's far more abusive to your customers than charging $60 for your game.

As for the iPad... its a niche, but its got its place, and if microsoft ever put out a competing product you can bet it wouldn't be nearly as functional as the apple version.

Way, way off-topic, but I'd guess that if Microsoft put out a competing product, I'd be able to write arbitrary applications for it from my Windows machine. Which makes it far more functional than the Apple version, which can only ever use apps that Apple has approved.

[ROFLbanshee]

Did only WC2 players buy WC3?

That's ridiculous.

Never said that. Collector's Edition.

Oh and for the people complaining about pricing, in Australia the regular version costs $100 which is about 93USD and the Collector's Edition is $150, or 139USD. Yet still I am compelled to get it...

[newcomplex]

I'm not particularly interested in getting into a week long debate with you Nicol, so I'll keep it simple.

Blizzard is not dependent on this extra 10$ neither to survive nor to profit.

I understand that companies are obligated to be for profit. The fact that this 10$ is not entirely needed to neither profit, expand, or subsist is not the point of contention.

The point of contention is:

You as a consumer, do not benefit from this 10$.

This 10$, as a whole, benefits mainly people who had nothing to do with the physical making of the game. A very small amount will actually end up in the hands of artists, producers, developers, level designers. Most of it will go overhead.

Why are you defending a corporate entities financial well being over your own consumer interests of a cheaper product?

Especially when said financial status is not in any danger, and thus, your additional cash is not contingent in you being able to continue to enjoy their products.

Being a conscientious and critical consumer is as much of capitalism as the companies job to operate frugally and for profit. In this situation, you have absolutely no defense for defending their actions. Despite inflation and increased production costs, this does not warrant for a price hike because computer games are a consistently expanding industry, showing consistent growth even during the height of the recession. Blizzard clearly doesn't need your help.

(That is, unless you are in the game industry, which I doubt you are)

You have no rationale for defending their corporate interests above your and ours collective consumer interests.

M$

$Q₪¥

Do I win some kind of prize? A for effort?

Seriously, I lol'ed. Hang in their bro, its gonna be ok.

[Maul]

I fully expect to get an infraction for this. I paid about $100 combined for starcraft and brood war 11 years ago. I've had 11 years of entertainment from a $100 investment. Bitching about $60 being too much for a game that we're all here discussing in our free time. How about you all stfu

[newcomplex]

I fully expect to get an infraction for this. I paid about $100 combined for starcraft and brood war 11 years ago. I've had 11 years of entertainment from a $100 investment. Bitching about $60 being too much for a game that we're all here discussing in our free time. How about you all stfu

Why would you be angry at someone who is advocating a cheaper product for you?

This kind of anti-capitalistic irrationality makes my brain hurt.

edit:
I figured out how to do Apple.

As in:

ZOMG д₱₱£€ IS EVIL CAPILISTIC CORPERATION FROM THE AMERICA TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD AND ENSLAVE US IN THE IN TRAP OF CAPITLISM

This is fun. When we end up living in some kind of Marxist Totalitarian state, I wonder if I'll be able to put these on my resume.

[killermofo]

(On "M$")

Or, you can just put stuff out there and hope that it works. But that's far more abusive to your customers than charging $60 for your game.

Resistance is futile. You will be a$$imilated.

;O

[Moradon]

Why would you be angry at someone who is advocating a cheaper product for you?

This kind of anti-capitalistic irrationality makes my brain hurt.

Nobody is demanding that Blizzard charges more. We're just being realistic.

Capitalism is Capitalism. Companies will charge what people are willing to pay for. Demanding price changes will accomplish nothing unless there is economic incentive to do so.

[newcomplex]

Nobody is demanding that Blizzard charges more. We're just being realistic.

Capitalism is Capitalism. Companies will charge what people are willing to pay for. Demanding price changes will accomplish nothing unless there is economic incentive to do so.

I was actually going to not buy SC until I realize I was like the only person doing so, at which point I decided just to screw it, your right, we don't have the power to change this decision unless theirs a very large boycott.

Their won't be a boycott right now. Most people don't care.

Change has to start somewhere, and changing attitudes is a good place to start.

I'm ok with people not caring really, though why anyone would defend this is beyond me.