Giant Bomb News

87 Comments

StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Dated for March 12, 2013

Second in the trilogy of games planned for Blizzard’s RTS coming together.

Blizzard Entertainment has been as cagey about the release for StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm as the company has been about any of its other products, but the expansion now has a date: March 12, 2013.

It is likely not a coincidence that Activision’s fiscal quarter ends on March 31, 2013.

Heart of the Swarm will be available for both PC and Mac for $39.99, a lowered price point because it’s not a complete sequel to StarCraft II. Rather than try to jam the full story Blizzard wanted to tell into StarCraft II, it’s expanded the storytelling across this expansion and another one in the future.

Patrick Klepek on Google+
87 Comments Refresh
  • 87 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by MercZ

I'm interested in the game, but not so much on the release price. A date is good though I guess.

Posted by FoolishChaos

I had a ton of fun with the campaign in SC2.

I don't know if its $40 worth of fun though.

Posted by John1912

Last game didnt feel like a full game ><

Posted by doe3879

is it stand alone or an actual expansion?

Edited by Forum_User

@doe3879 said:

is it stand alone or an actual expansion?

From http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/game/heart-of-the-swarm-preview/faq#q6 :

For the regions that have a standard box business model such as North America and Europe, yes, Wings of Liberty will be required in order to play Heart of the Swarm. For other regions that have alternative access models, we’ll provide details at a later date.

And yes, this contradicts what they said a long time ago. I can't imagine that it really affects a large percentage of players, though.

Posted by avidwriter

@John1912 said:

Last game didnt feel like a full game ><

This was what I was always worried about when they first said they were splitting up SC2 into 3 games. Felt like a cash grab at the time and now it's just apparent it was.

Posted by datarez

Scoops out scooped Brad to a SC2 story?!

Posted by Fredchuckdave

@FoolishChaos said:

I had a ton of fun with the campaign in SC2.

I don't know if its $40 worth of fun though.

Personally it was the most fun I had with the game, really well thought out achievements and while Brutal was maybe a bit easy it was still a brief challenge at least. Getting the Lost Viking: Gold achievement is a wonderful completely unrelated to anything else experience. Though they could easily screw it up in HoTS or make it too short but eh it'll probably be another solid outing. I don't think so highly of the multiplayer however.

Posted by infestedandy

@CJduke: It makes more sense to someone like you who obviously has put a HUGE amount of time into the game. If you're salivating for more SCII and watch tons of MLG or whatever events, then yeah, it's totally worth the price for you. For someone who just plays it every now and then, it doesn't seem as exciting.

Posted by infestedandy

@baldgye: What do I need to do to sound like a fan? Name drop rush build methods like your '2base' and maybe refer to a bunch of heavy-hitter SCII professional players? Just because I'm voicing some concerns doesn't mean I can't be a fan of the series.

Also, three years is a long time for any kind of expansion to a game. Blizzard runs off of their own time, that we all know, but it doesn't make the wait for an augmentation off of WOL's infrastructure any easier. Hell, Brood War came less than a year after the original game. Now, obviously games have evolved and with it the technology, but are we supposed to wait three more years now for the next expansion? That's pretty ridiculous.

Posted by haffy

@infestedandy: I don't understand what your complaining about lol.

You complain about how long it takes to come out and the price?

Well yeah waiting sucks, but it doesn't really make sense as to a reason why it will be bad.

$40 is expensive lol? Fact is there is barely any games that come out that can compare to the amount of content on release, and the amount of free updates you get after you play Blizzard games.

If you disagree, well I guess you could go buy COD every year for $60.

Posted by Levio

I got enough SC2 from WoL, I don't need more regardless of the price.

Posted by infestedandy

@haffy: Let me be more clear. HOTS won't be a bad game nor do I want it to be, I was merely voicing my opinion about the length it took to make a friggin' expansion and the cost for the people who already bought Wings of Liberty. If you aren't into the multiplayer that much (I dabble in it) then $40 is a greater price than I'd like to see. Then again, it could always be so much worse.

Blizzard takes forever to come out with anything, but three years for an expansion? Really? I hope the Protoss game doesn't take another three.

Posted by haffy

@infestedandy: I mean, I can't really argue with you about the 3 year wait. Like I said it sucks. But I don't understand why it has any negative impact on the quality of the game.

Also look at this objectively. You don't know what is in this expansion content wise, and your complaining about $40. This argument would make sense if you had an idea of what's going to be in the game. But you don't.

Posted by Dtat

@John1912: Really? Huh. I really really thought it did. Campaign alone was as long as the original Starcraft's was.

Posted by Xymox

I assume there will be a full/battle chest edition for those of us who still haven't played any of the three.

Posted by chose

40$, well I guess that's why it is called Activision-Blizzard.

Posted by impartialgecko

Oh yeah this was going to be a trilogy wasn't it?

Posted by Bell_End

@infestedandy said:

@haffy: Let me be more clear. HOTS won't be a bad game nor do I want it to be, I was merely voicing my opinion about the length it took to make a friggin' expansion and the cost for the people who already bought Wings of Liberty. If you aren't into the multiplayer that much (I dabble in it) then $40 is a greater price than I'd like to see. Then again, it could always be so much worse.

Blizzard takes forever to come out with anything, but three years for an expansion? Really? I hope the Protoss game doesn't take another three.

oh internet people.

you complain when things come out to soon and you complain when thing take to long to come out.

how are dev supposed to read your minds and know the what is the correct window to make you happy.

Edited by Heath

they should make the previous campaigns free statecraft is already too expensive for what it offers this and the 2nd expansion will make that ratio worse.

They shouldn't have split up SC2 but delayed it more.. same goes for Diablo3 i feel like the delays and silence for these too games was more to do with a marketing plan for slow attention wow players than any thing els. its disgusting they have both been shit.

Edited by Torticoli

@Bell_End said:

oh internet people.

you complain when things come out to soon and you complain when thing take to long to come out.

"You complain when this bad thing happens, and you also complain when this other bad thing happens!" Yes, that's called being reasonable.

how are dev supposed to read your minds and know the what is the correct window to make you happy.

By not releasing their games too soon, nor take too long to make them. There is such a thing as a middle ground, you know.

@haffy said:

$40 is expensive lol? Fact is there is barely any games that come out that can compare to the amount of content on release, and the amount of free updates you get after you play Blizzard games.

If you disagree, well I guess you could go buy COD every year for $60.

Which is funny, considering COD is published by the same company SCII is.

Posted by baldgye

@infestedandy your suppose to show that your a fan by not being thick as shit and being happy that WoL had time to mature as a game, what would be the point of making an expansion to a game that's broken? Even after 3 yrs WoL isn't balanced fully and HotS if you've been playing it is ALONG way from balanced. Original default sc was broken as shit, and BW took years and years to make work, if sc2 was to stand a chance after the success of BW it needed time to become its own thing, before being fucked with. A real fan would know and accept this.

Posted by Bell_End

@Torticoli said:

@Bell_End said:

oh internet people.

you complain when things come out to soon and you complain when thing take to long to come out.

"You complain when this bad thing happens, and you also complain when this other bad thing happens!" Yes, that's called being reasonable.

how are dev supposed to read your minds and know the what is the correct window to make you happy.

By not releasing their games too soon, nor take too long to make them. There is such a thing as a middle ground, you know.

@haffy said:

$40 is expensive lol? Fact is there is barely any games that come out that can compare to the amount of content on release, and the amount of free updates you get after you play Blizzard games.

If you disagree, well I guess you could go buy COD every year for $60.

Which is funny, considering COD is published by the same company SCII is.

so what is the agreed internet standard for game releases.

Posted by rmills87

Fuck me, I am so happy! Cannot wait for March 12!!! I just hope now that it's not delayed.

Posted by baldgye

Love how people can't work out the difference between blizz and activison everytime a new blizz game comes out...

Edited by Torticoli

@Bell_End said:

so what is the agreed internet standard for game releases.

There isn't one. Depends on the game ; for instance, in the case of a highly competitive game with lots of money involved (SCII), it makes sense to have to wait almost three years for an expansion, considering the game itself keeps evolving anyway, through balance and metagame changes. Plus, commercially, Blizzard doesn't need to release new games very often and therefore it probably makes sense for them to squeeze every last drop out of WoL, in terms of balance opportunities, hype, tournaments, and so on, before moving on to HotS.

Just my two cents, I may be talking nonsense.

Edited by Forum_User

@baldgye said:

Love how people can't work out the difference between blizz and activison everytime a new blizz game comes out...

Many people have themselves convinced that some of the directions they have been moving in, particularly with regards to required online connectivity, are because of that acquisition, rather than being a sign of the times (more people with broadband connections, piracy being far more rampant). Maybe that is the reason, and maybe it isn't. I just know that it would have been a foolish thing to do a decade ago, given the far smaller number of people with constant internet connections, so it's not a very good assumption to make.

Some people also have it in their heads that inflation should not apply to video games somehow. I guess the funny thing is that they are kind of right: For various reasons, video game prices have historically not increased along with inflation, despite them also having increasingly large development costs. Actually, since they 16-bit days, they have gone down, particularly when you factor in this new generation of cheap downloadable titles. Back then, no matter how little a game was, if it was on the console, you could pretty much guarantee it was going to be at least $40, and I don't know that there were many games that were that "cheap," even.

I guess the "hardcore" (people who care enough about the medium to routinely post about it on forums) are a fickle lot. ; )

Posted by FMinus

Wooo hooo, I'd take a proper innovative RTS from Relic over this any day.

Posted by KlUMZeE

Cool, nice to see this finally coming together, even though I don't play SC because I'm terrible at it.

Posted by BombKareshi

It took repeatedly getting my ass delivered to me on the internet to the point of frustration for me to remember what I really loved about StarCraft was the campaign, and in no small part, the story. Both felt "off" to me in SC2, and I'm not playing online again, that's for sure. So yeah, skip.

Posted by Terramagi

From what I've heard about the beta, this is going to be a shitstorm, and I want no part of it.

Besides, SC2's story was done. Fucking SPACE SARGERAS? Are you KIDDING?

Posted by haffy

@Terramagi said:

From what I've heard about the beta, this is going to be a shitstorm, and I want no part of it.

Besides, SC2's story was done. Fucking SPACE SARGERAS? Are you KIDDING?

What are you talking about?

I keep up to date with SC but usually stay out of the dumb pointless drama that can go on, so I could of missed what your talking about. But from what I know, no one is really complaining about HOTS at all. Most of the pro's aren't playing because they have tournaments in WOL still. Also there is some stupid mistakes, like bad maps and no ones really sure about balance yet and what's staying. But that's pretty normal for a beta.

And no SC2 story wasn't close to being done. There was a shit load of loose ends that just weren't explained in the slightest at the end.

Duran, the dark voice, the Xel Naga and Zueratals story line. Quite a lot to go.

All that's just off the top off my head. I'm sure there is other story lines to finish off.

Posted by baldgye

haffy are you in the beta? It's kinda bad atm, not really from playing games but jsut the point of the new units...

Posted by haffy

Nah I'm not. I got to admit a lot of what I said is just from looking at teamliquid since release. But the units I've seen and heard about from things like inside the game and state of the game, no body seemed to be too disappointed with it.

Posted by baldgye

@haffy said:

Nah I'm not. I got to admit a lot of what I said is just from looking at teamliquid since release. But the units I've seen and heard about from things like inside the game and state of the game, no body seemed to be too disappointed with it.

yeah but most of TL is nonsense idea's people have and complaining about not being in the beta... tbh the new units for protoss and terran are, just kinda not great..

Terran get one new unit and its only good for the early game... once it gets late game, they are all but meaningless supply be like defending a mineral line with a marauder...

Protoss's new units are kinda just hap-hazard and random, the mother-ship core means that PvP is one base again and that blink-stalker all ins and 4gates are super effective. The orical is good early game vs Z as they can snipe hatches and good vs T becasue you can snipe building ad-ons and maybe depts but then they again become this werid unit that can just slow down the enemy? like hows that useful? The tempest is the only really useful addition to protoss but even that isn't super great vs late game Z becasue the mothership's vortex is still more powerful, if anything the tempest just force an engagment...

Posted by haffy

@baldgye: Yeah, that does seem kind of bad. But looking back on WOL beta and early release it seemed much worse than where HOTS is at now.

Also I think it's hard to tell the role of each unit. Infesters, broodlords, ravens and motherships were barely made in tournament matches. Now they're pretty common. So while they might be shit now and need buffs and nerfs, it's pretty unusual for a unit to be completely useless.

Posted by baldgye

@haffy said:

@baldgye: Yeah, that does seem kind of bad. But looking back on WOL beta and early release it seemed much worse than where HOTS is at now.

Also I think it's hard to tell the role of each unit. Infesters, broodlords, ravens and motherships were barely made in tournament matches. Now they're pretty common. So while they might be shit now and need buffs and nerfs, it's pretty unusual for a unit to be completely useless.

I think Ravens are still one of the units that isn't used enough really, and Terran mech still isn't really worked out and Widdow mines do help with going mech... but honestly just the design idea's behind the new units kinda sucks, unless your zerg...

burrowed broodlords? YES PLEASE

units that can grab vital units and pull them into my roach/ling army? YES PLEASE

yeah there is alot ot be worked out still and HotS has along way to go.. but atm its just kinda bad... and I really don't think that WoL builds should still be viable or indeed (as they are) super charged by the new units :/

  • 87 results
  • 1
  • 2