Board 8 > So, for the record, regardless of Blizzard's actions, Acti aren't changing them.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Blizzard has always been about the money.

Always.

Completely.

Blizzard would have done everything they are without Activision, because it is a natural way to squeeze more money out with(arguable) minimal harm to the player base.

--
Joyrock
Fresh from my first justified ban. Ever!

They weren't all about the money when they made one of the best games ever (Hint: It didn't have "craft" or "Diablo" in the name)

--
http://i.imgur.com/WRgfu.gif

From: MarvelousGerbil | #002
They weren't all about the money when they made one of the best games ever (Hint: It didn't have "craft" or "Diablo" in the name)

The Lost Vikings were pretty boss

--
Cokes as The Green Lantern, by fr0q
http://img.imgcake.com/greencokespngsa.png

MarvelousGerbil posted...
They weren't all about the money when they made one of the best games ever (Hint: It didn't have "craft" or "Diablo" in the name)

Actually they were >.>;

They made some pretty awful games for the money!

Well ok, just one.

But Blizzards whole idea has been to provide a solid, lasting experience that will get them a big fanbase while being able to squeeze as much money out of it as possible without losing them.

--
Joyrock
Fresh from my first justified ban. Ever!

blizzard pre-merger never released an already completed game one third at a time

posting in a joyrock topic

Liquid Wind posted...
blizzard pre-merger never released an already completed game one third at a time

posting in a joyrock topic

They did blatantly rehash a game once though.

--
Currently playing: League of Legends, Chrono Cross.
Current Projects: Fool's Overture, CYOA: http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/8-gamefaqs-contests/59835001

CherryCokes posted...
From: MarvelousGerbil | #002
They weren't all about the money when they made one of the best games ever (Hint: It didn't have "craft" or "Diablo" in the name)
The Lost Vikings were pretty boss

I think he was talking about Rock 'N Roll Racing. Though Lost Vikings was awesome as well.

--
MvC3: Haggar/Ammy/Wesker
http://img.imgcake.com/1294368287999pngyz.png

He was totally talking about Blackthorne.

--
Black Turtle spilled my diet soda!

Gaming is a business? I never knew that.

Fact: pre-merger Blizzard never released a single episode as a full game. They only added expansion packs with episodic content after the fact.

Related fact: in the old shareware days of gaming with games that had episodic content, the first episode would usually be released for free.

Another related fact: you only needed one copy of Starcraft per three players to play multiplayer over LAN.

--
It's F-Zero. F-ZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERO!
http://img.imgcake.com/RedShifter/2151973035BxpuL2az.jpg

Still wish they released Lord of the Clans though, Id have payed to see Deathwing smoking a Hookah animated :(

--
Nice catch BlAcK TuRtLe.
But too bad your ass got SAAAAAAAAAAACKED.*tackles*

blizzard pre-merger never released an already completed game one third at a time

I have no stake in this discussion, really, but this is just bad logic. Heard of the post-hoc fallacy before? What if it's simply the case that Blizzard needed to reach a certain size before opting to squeeze out money from its consumers like it's doing now?

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBpfwpOPXNc&NR=1&feature=fvwp
~Pinkie Pie is the best pony~

Liquid Wind posted...
blizzard pre-merger never released an already completed game one third at a time

posting in a joyrock topic

They didn't do it after the merger either.

--
Joyrock
Fresh from my first justified ban. Ever!

They didn't do it after the merger either.

yes they did.

Liquid Wind posted...
They didn't do it after the merger either.

yes they did.

No, they didn't.

For one, starcraft 2 is not completed; for two, wings of liberty is not a third of a game, it's a full game worth the price.

--
Joyrock
Fresh from my first justified ban. Ever!

wings of liberty is not a third of a game, it's a full game worth the price.

ahahahahaha

shouldn't surprise me considering this is coming from the guy that claimed FPS literally wouldn't exist if not for valve, but somehow you consistently manage to reach new lows.

inb4Ultisayingcalleditforsomereason

--
Not changing this sig until I decide to change this sig.
Started: July 6, 2005

Yeah you just have to contribute no insight or thought.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

That took a surprisingly long time.


13.5 hours.

--
http://alison-brie.net/galleries/3.jpg

Tag.

--
Ace Detective in Sir Chris' Police
http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/8436/ldt2r.gif

From: Liquid Wind | #005
blizzard pre-merger never released an already completed game one third at a time

posting in a joyrock topic

--
Never underestimate the power of stupidity in numbers. ~War13104
Never stoop to the level of idiots. They will drag you down and beat you with experience.

Liquid Wind posted...
wings of liberty is not a third of a game, it's a full game worth the price.

ahahahahaha

shouldn't surprise me considering this is coming from the guy that claimed FPS literally wouldn't exist if not for valve, but somehow you consistently manage to reach new lows.

I'd love you to explain how it wasn't a full game.

I know you won't, but I'd love to hear you try!

--
Joyrock
Fresh from my first justified ban. Ever!

CherryCokes posted...
That took a surprisingly long time.


13.5 hours.

Indeed, longer than expected.

--
Joyrock
Fresh from my first justified ban. Ever!

Now, the question is how long until someone attempts to claim how Starcraft 2 is a third of a game.

--
Joyrock
Fresh from my first justified ban. Ever!

Anyone who thinks sc2 is a third of a game isn't very intelligent. Even going by pure single player it has more content than a ton of other games that charge 60$. When you take into account multiplayer + map editor possibilities it has more content than 99.9% of other games.

--
Starcraft is my life, so without it I wouldn't exist. - Artosis

JJH777 posted...
Anyone who thinks sc2 is a third of a game isn't very intelligent. Even going by pure single player it has more content than a ton of other games that charge 60$. When you take into account multiplayer + map editor possibilities it has more content than 99.9% of other games.

shhhh logic scares them away, you have to talk about how the campaign only used one faction so that means it's only one third of a game!

--
Joyrock
Fresh from my first justified ban. Ever!

JJH777 posted...
Anyone who thinks sc2 is a third of a game isn't very intelligent.

Bobby Kotick must be stupid, then.

--
I like how each new topic you make reveals such varied facets of your idiocy. - foolmo
Now this is entertainment!

Its not like Blizzard has been releasing expansions since Warcraft II or anything...

Starcraft II is a full game. The only difference between it and past blizzard games is that it is getting two expansions.

These are the same people that think nintendo hasn't made a good game since before windwaker and that capcom doesn't deserve money even though they made a good game that they'll enjoy.

Anything related to a company they hate they'll blast, so they go "oh no kotick!" and proceed with senseless and baseless attacks on a good game.

--
Joyrock
Fresh from my first justified ban. Ever!

These are the same people that think nintendo hasn't made a good game since before windwaker and that capcom doesn't deserve money even though they made a good game that they'll enjoy.

this all sounds familiar to me

I'd love you to explain how it wasn't a full game.

I know you won't, but I'd love to hear you try!

It's not that it's a third of a game really, it's a planned 1/3 of what will ultimately be the final game. This isn't like most good PC games where they release a product, listen to fan feedback and see how the balance works, then make an expansion that fixes issues, adds lots of fun stuff, and makes the gameplay more rich (Warcraft III, Civilization IV, lots of other ones). It was planned from the beginning to be a three parter, which is a non-issue for single player but a big deal for multiplayer.

There's no way you can spin that as a positive, at best it can be a "personally I don't care." There's no upside to the decision except that Bliz probably gets more money in the end.

OctilIery posted...
Anything related to a company they hate they'll blast, so they go "oh no kotick!" and proceed with senseless and baseless attacks on a good game.

Did you actually read my review? The 1/3rd of a game that's actually there is pretty damn good, and I don't think anyone is denying this. The stated business plan, though, people have every right to be annoyed about. I'm glad I played it over a friend's, because I'd be a complete moron had I paid money to play the game.

--
Get the X out.
Vinateri was using his god powers on the Pats and then was like "Wait I'm a Colt now lol" and now you have it.

OmarsComin posted...
There's no way you can spin that as a positive, at best it can be a "personally I don't care." There's no upside to the decision except that Bliz probably gets more money in the end.

You'll be getting close to 90 missions throughout all three campaigns. That sounds like a positive to me.

EDIT: Also, its probably safe to say Blizzard planned to split WCIII into RoC and TFT.

it's a multiplayer-focused game, though. people are mostly going to get value for the game from playing online, and whatever you get from single player is just extra. I'm certainly not putting out money for the single player campaign and my guess is most other people aren't either.

EDIT: Also, its probably safe to say Blizzard planned to split WCIII into RoC and TFT.

I'd be interested in hearing more about this

And this is no different from what they did with WCIII or BW. Added new units during the expansions which affected the multiplayer gameplay.

Do you honestly think that Blizzard went into WCIII without any intention of making an expansion, despite making expansions for WCII and SC?

Do you honestly think that Blizzard went into WCIII without any intention of making an expansion, despite making expansions for WCII and SC?

I dunno! No one knows. Which is a different situation than what we're in now because we've known since day 1 we weren't playing the finished product in SCII.

Highwind89 posted...
Do you honestly think that Blizzard went into WCIII without any intention of making an expansion, despite making expansions for WCII and SC?

The "expansion" for Starcraft 2 is clearly going to be the 4th, 5th and 6th campaigns, all released separately because lol Blizzard.

Oh and dude, Nintendo really hasn't been worth a damn since Wind Waker. They have not made one good game since without the help of Intelligent Systems.

--
Get the X out.
Vinateri was using his god powers on the Pats and then was like "Wait I'm a Colt now lol" and now you have it.

OctilIery posted...
These are the same people that think nintendo hasn't made a good game since before windwaker and that capcom doesn't deserve money even though they made a good game that they'll enjoy.

You think that Blizzard is justified in releasing a third of a game and charging full price for it.

lol

--
I like how each new topic you make reveals such varied facets of your idiocy. - foolmo
Now this is entertainment!

OmarsComin posted...
EDIT: Also, its probably safe to say Blizzard planned to split WCIII into RoC and TFT.

I'd be interested in hearing more about this

It's incredibly obvious considering TFT was released barely a year after RoC. They didn't wait for fan feedback and then make it.

I'm sorry you guys are idiots I base my purchases of time spent/money spent SC2 will be a game I spend 1000s of hours on for a few hundred dollars that is a far better deal than any other game purchase I have ever made besides SCBW, and WC3. Two other blizzard games. Also using the it was planned argument is idiotic. Do you know what else was a planned trilogy as soon as it was announced? Mass Effect I have never seen anyone call that a third of a game.

Edit: also if we waited for blizz to make the "full game" we wouldn't get it till 2015. They aren't done with HotS yet and haven't even started the protoss expansion. Also how can you justify this being a third of a game when it objectively has more content than BW? It has 1 less campaign mission but then it has the challenge missions which will take a few hours to complete. Then it has the 3 blizzard custom games. These have to be counted since blizzard themselves made them. All BW has is a terrible campaign (sure the story is better but every map is mass up and go kill them) and multiplayer.

--
Starcraft is my life, so without it I wouldn't exist. - Artosis

Blizz told us they have expansions planned for diablo 3 already. Does that make it a money grab?

--
Joyrock
Fresh from my first justified ban. Ever!

Mass Effect isn't even remotely the same situation, and I'm a little disappointed that that was the best excuse you could come up with.

No, planning sequels ahead of time is not an obvious cash grab, especially in ME's case where all three games are so different from a gameplay and structural standpoint. It was explicitly stated that SC2's business model was to split the game up and sell it in three parts just to maximize profit. We know this, but you'd rather point out that other companies make true sequels to games instead of cashing in on the same one again as if it means something. How much content is present is completely irrelevant because in the grand scheme of things, Activision-Blizzard is fully aware of what the game plan is; sell what could be a $60 game for $180 over three years.

You can go on about the campaign all you want, but SC is most famous, as far as I can tell, for its multiplayer. Is so much going to change between this version of SC2 and the next that you'll be able to buy it for full price and be satisfied? I can't imagine them doing an overhaul of the entire system just to make it worth it. It would probably just get done in the same vein as Call of Du-...

Hey wait a minute

--
I like how each new topic you make reveals such varied facets of your idiocy. - foolmo
Now this is entertainment!

They are spending more time making these 1/3s of a game than bioware is spending making their "true sequels". Obviously they aren't going to change the multiplayer that much as that'd just ruin the game as an e-sport. They will add a few units to each race and do more balancing (which most companies don't bother doing but Blizz does for years and years after their games are released). If bioware announcing that ME is going to be a trilogy before the first game came out isn't a cash grab then this isn't either they are the exact same thing except these next 2 games for blizzard aren't going to be charged full price they will only be 40$ each while every mass effect game is 60$ + ~20 in dlc rofl.

--
Starcraft is my life, so without it I wouldn't exist. - Artosis

No one buys SC for the campaign, you're sad if you honestly think that's worth $180. $360 by the time the expansion packs come out and are also split up. Bobby Kotick is going to drive everything that was good about Blizzard into the ground just like Guitar Hero.

--
I haven't played The Wind Waker-LinkMarioSamus

Blulum posted...
No one buys SC for the campaign, you're sad if you honestly think that's worth $180. $360 by the time the expansion packs come out and are also split up. Bobby Kotick is going to drive everything that was good about Blizzard into the ground just like Guitar Hero.

Where the hell are you getting those numbers? 60 + 40 + 40 = 140 no where near 360. It's not just the campaigns either also a few new units for each race/new maps/new ladder/achievements/clans/custom games/tons of new features for map editor and of course more balance patches since they will most likely stop balancing the previous version once an expansion comes out.

--
Starcraft is my life, so without it I wouldn't exist. - Artosis