When I was at Blizzcon 2008 I have to say I didn't think much of the announcement that they wanted to split up Starcraft II into three games. But after I got back, given what I've seen of the message boards and general comments regarding the split, it sounded like the audience was ready to rise as one and revolt right there. Not only were the people  calm, the presentation ended with applause...

Everyone seems to be assuming that Blizzard took one game and split it into three pieces in an effort to make more money. Given the current information, I do not believe this to be the case. Essentially, they gave us three options in terms of Starcraft II development:

1. Cut the game's scope and release the product quicker.
2. Keep the game's scope and have an extremely long development cycle.
3. Keep the game's scope and release content sooner to the consumer by splitting the game up.

Given these options, I believe they have the fan's best interest in mind by getting content to the fans quicker while keeping the game's massive scope. With the kind of scope they were discussing, you could easily fit it into games. I might have been able to believe that this is a ploy for more money if you needed all three in order to fully play the multiplayer, but such is not the case. It was made very clear that the muliplayer is exactly the same regardless of whether you buy one game or all three. As long as the campaigns can justify the purchase of three games, then I'd even prefer three games. Blizzard wants Starcraft II to be an epic scale, as well they should. And seeing as how they're talking about each campaign being 20+ hours each, I'm very happy with it.