Starcraft 2 Special edition is a wee bit pricey.

[flabortast]

Again, Diablo 2 and WarCraft 3 were priced as $60 on release. Both way before the merger. I don't know why people are up in arms now.

[Xyvik]

Ugh, can't take you seriously after this little gem. In that case I'll just end this here. Your skepticism is far too extreme than what is necessary.

That was perhaps a bit too harsh, but calling SC2 "incredibly deep" in the skill department is also a bit too much. SC1 and SC2 cater as much to reaction times as they do to skill, especially on Faster.

Do I enjoy SC2 multiplayer? Yes, when I don't get cheesed. Do I enjoy it enough to spend an extra $10 for it? No. No I don't.

[Moradon]

That was perhaps a bit too harsh, but calling SC2 "incredibly deep" in the skill department is also a bit too much. SC1 and SC2 cater as much to reaction times as they do to skill, especially on Faster.

Do I enjoy SC2 multiplayer? Yes, when I don't get cheesed. Do I enjoy it enough to spend an extra $10 for it? No. No I don't.

So you're lashing out at SC2 because you don't like getting cheesed? This is getting really silly now. SC1 has had over a decade of metagame development, and I can assure you that it goes a LOT deeper than cheese/rush/8min games that you were claiming. SC2 certainly has the potential to get that far with the proper balancing, but it really seems that you're just clawing out for any excuse to label SC2 as a disappointment.

[pure.Wasted]

That was perhaps a bit too harsh, but calling SC2 "incredibly deep" in the skill department is also a bit too much. SC1 and SC2 cater as much to reaction times as they do to skill, especially on Faster.

If you want to play a TBS, there's plenty of those available. Reaction time is important, and if yours sucks, you can either play and get better (something you seem to have no interest in) or not play (something that might be more up your alley).

Do I enjoy SC2 multiplayer? Yes, when I don't get cheesed. Do I enjoy it enough to spend an extra $10 for it? No. No I don't.

Is it just me or is this really, really simple?

Don't buy it. You are very aware of what meets your value standards and what doesn't. SC2 doesn't. Therefore, you shouldn't buy it. Bam, issues solved.

If you're incapable of dealing with rudimentary cheese (the kinds that are in the game right now) there are two possibilities: one, it's absolutely imbalanced, but that's OK because that's what the Beta is for, and Blizz will fix it! Or two, it's your own damn fault for losing to it. It's very easy to get better and learn to deal with them. If the game isn't enjoyable enough to make you bother, don't play it.

[killermofo]

So you're lashing out at SC2 because you don't like getting cheesed? This is getting really silly now. SC1 has had over a decade of metagame development, and I can assure you that it goes a LOT deeper than cheese/rush/8min games that you were claiming. SC2 certainly has the potential to get that far with the proper balancing, but it really seems that you're just clawing out for any excuse to label SC2 as a disappointment.

sc2 is a higher quality game than cod mw2 ever will even after it's $15 map packs.. hell they didn't even have a beta and (thanks again bobby) its still a nub fest. blizzard is a good company but unfortunetly greed corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely..

[Xyvik]

Ask Island, I've been trying extremely hard to get better and I've been doing pretty good at it. Reaction times are an extremely important part of RTS games, true, but SC2 seems to cater a bit too heavily towards reaction times as opposed to pure strategy. SupCom and the Age of Empires series are perfect examples of games that catered more to strategy and less to reaction times. See the difference? i personally prefer it one way, but to claim "deep skill" in SC2 is, as it currently stands, laughable. Will it get to that point? Maybe, in a few years. But certainly not for awhile.

What I don't get is how people can just sit idly by and ENJOY getting ripped off. There are plenty of reasons why SC2 is not living up to it's hype, but you know what, I was going to buy it anyway.

But I will not let any company rip me off. $60 for a PC game is a rip-off. Are you all so blindly in love with Blizzard that you can't see the truth when it's sitting right in front of your eyes? newcomplex did a great job of showing why there is no financial reason to raise the price of SC2. Are you all so truly willing to just lie back and metaphorically 'take it'?

If that honestly doesn't bother you, then I guess that's your prerogative. But it sure as heck bothers me. And that is the point I am trying to bring out. Perhaps I simply used too many words surrounding my point that it got lost in translation. I do that often.

So let me put to you this way: Are you comfortable paying $60 for a PC game? Are you honestly comfortable letting Activision charge you more than is necessary simply because they know you'll pay it?

[pure.Wasted]

My god do you people even get the point? Ask Island, I've been trying extremely hard to get better and I've been doing pretty good at it. Reaction times are an extremely important part of RTS games, true, but SC2 seems to cater a bit too heavily towards reaction times as opposed to pure strategy. SupCom and the Age of Empires series are perfect examples of games that catered more to strategy and less to reaction times. See the difference? i personally prefer it one way, but to claim "deep skill" in SC2 is, as it currently stands, laughable. Will it get to that point? Maybe, in a few years. But certainly not for awhile.

You seem to be under the impression that only the strategy part of the equation is valid skill, and reaction is simply "something you have to do to get the strategy into play." This is not correct. Go into a CS or TF2 forum and tell them they don't have skill, because reaction time is 95% of the game.

What I don't get is how people can just sit idly by and ENJOY getting ripped off. There are plenty of reasons why SC2 is not living up to it's hype, but you know what, I was going to buy it anyway.

Now here's the tricky part. What if I don't feel ripped off? What if I'd actually be willing (NOT happy, but WILLING) to spend $100 on a non-CE version of this game?

I don't think you realize just how much other people -- not yourself -- love what they'll be getting for their money.

So let me put to you this way: Are you comfortable paying $60 for a PC game? Are you honestly comfortable letting Activision charge you more than is necessary simply because they know you'll pay it?

I paid $150 for the WC3 CE.

I paid $45 for TFT.

Not only am I "comfortable" paying $60 for a full game that isn't an expansion (not just any game, SC2), I'll be very comfortably purchasing the SC2 CE, which costs a boatload more.

[Xyvik]

You seem to be under the impression that only the strategy part of the equation is valid skill, and reaction is simply "something you have to do to get the strategy into play." This is not correct. Go into a CS or TF2 forum and tell them they don't have skill, because reaction time is 95% of the game.

yeah, I know, I already admitted saying it wasn't skill was a bit harsh. Allow me to apologize and state that yes, SC2 involves skill. Deep skill? Not yet. Soon, but not yet.

Now here's the tricky part. What if I don't feel ripped off? What if I'd actually be willing (NOT happy, but WILLING) to spend $100 on a non-CE version of this game?

I don't think you realize just how much other people -- not yourself -- love what they'll be getting for their money.

And that is at least an answer to my (admittedly edited) question. Any others care to answer? I'd really like to know.

[Moradon]

Ask Island, I've been trying extremely hard to get better and I've been doing pretty good at it. Reaction times are an extremely important part of RTS games, true, but SC2 seems to cater a bit too heavily towards reaction times as opposed to pure strategy. SupCom and the Age of Empires series are perfect examples of games that catered more to strategy and less to reaction times. See the difference? i personally prefer it one way, but to claim "deep skill" in SC2 is, as it currently stands, laughable. Will it get to that point? Maybe, in a few years. But certainly not for awhile.

What I don't get is how people can just sit idly by and ENJOY getting ripped off. There are plenty of reasons why SC2 is not living up to it's hype, but you know what, I was going to buy it anyway.

But I will not let any company rip me off. $60 for a PC game is a rip-off. Are you all so blindly in love with Blizzard that you can't see the truth when it's sitting right in front of your eyes? newcomplex did a great job of showing why there is no financial reason to raise the price of SC2. Are you all so truly willing to just lie back and metaphorically 'take it'?

If that honestly doesn't bother you, then I guess that's your prerogative. But it sure as heck bothers me. And that is the point I am trying to bring out. Perhaps I simply used too many words surrounding my point that it got lost in translation. I do that often.

So let me put to you this way: Are you comfortable paying $60 for a PC game? Are you honestly comfortable letting Activision charge you more than is necessary simply because they know you'll pay it?

There are plenty of things that I want to be in SC2 right now, but I really don't see why it makes the game some kind of horrible disappointment. It's still very fun, very enjoyable to play by myself and with others, and I'm looking forward to all of its other features that I haven't tried yet. Plus, it has two expansions worth of content to be added as well, and Blizzard has ALWAYS been faithful when it comes to supporting games well after release. SC2 was never going to be the "perfect" game, especially not in the first part of the trilogy, and if you were expecting it as such, then your disappointment should be no surprise.

And as for the price, keep in mind that Blizzard games have been retailing for $60 for over a decade now, long before SC2, and long before Activision. Nothing you are saying now about the price hasn't been said hundreds of times before. If it bothers you, don't buy it or wait for the Battlechest discount. No need to dictate to the rest of us how we should feel about spending our money.

[pure.Wasted]

And that is at least an answer to my (admittedly edited) question. Any others care to answer? I'd really like to know.

Just in case you missed it, Nicol's post from the previous page:

Having recognized the nature of reality, all that I need to ask myself is this: is the value I expect from the game worth $60? Considering that I paid more than $100 to get the opportunity to play a rough version of only a portion of the game for at most 6 months? Well, I think that speaks for itself.

Which isn't meant to shut down your question, others should feel free to chime in as well.