Having a 13' macbook and a 6-year-old Dell desktop means I'm not exactly in a prime position to play Starcraft 2. My Dell does technically run it with everything turned all the way down, but when multiple armies start amassing and running into each other the game becomes a slide show. Still very playable for the most part, but obviously not the ideal way to experience one of the best real time strategy games in years. This wouldn't be so bad if all I had was my desktop and macbook, but I don't. I own a PS3 and a 360 (and a Wii... but that doesn't really matter.) I thought Activison liked money, so where's the console version of Starcraft 2? Many would scream blasphemy at the very idea, but it makes perfect sense from a technical and even business standpoint.
Crazier things have happened on the consoles this generation, Unreal Tournament 3 on the PS3 is a perfect example. The Unreal series had made forays into the console market before, but the experiences were always compromised to some degree. With Unreal Tournament 3 Epic looked at the PS3, said "hey, we can basically make this exact same game on the console if we wanted," and they did. Keyboard and mouse support was added in, as was support for mods, which at the time seemed totally crazy. Now, as far as I see it, the only thing that is crazy is the fact more developers don't follow in Epic's footsteps. If it can be done, then why not?
A port is all that would be needed; adding in controller support shouldn't even be an option, make the mouse and keyboard required. Coming in part from Activison, the company that requires you to own a plethora of fake plastic instruments to play any of their music games, one would assume they wouldn’t have a problem with this. (The argument can be made that you could very well play Guitar Hero with a controller, but that argument is one devised by crazy people.) Expecting people to have a USB keyboard and a USB mouse is not irregular, its basically common place in most homes that already have a desktop PC. Getting this to work on the 360 could be a challenge with Microsoft's stance on not letting developers take advantage of mouse and keyboard support, but let them know that Starcraft 2 will be a PS3 exclusive... and we'll see how quickly that changes. Allowing 360 users to make custom maps (and mods) would be a much larger challenge, though there's no technical reason why it can't be done. If Microsoft doesn't budge... bring it to the PS3 only where users can have as close to a PC experience as humanly possible.
There's literally no technical reason why Starcraft 2 can't come to consoles. On the business end, it actually makes even more sense... assuming Blizzard and Activison likes money (they do.) One could say that they will make "enough" money on the PC version, and who am I to argue? 1.5 million copies worldwide at the time of this writing isn't just big, it's huge. Starcraft 2 is the fastest selling strategy game... ever. However with an opportunity to go above and beyond that with a console release, why not give it a shot? Blizzard was more than willing to try putting Starcraft on the N64 and Diablo on the PSX back in the day. This was when the consoles were significantly weaker then the PC, and there was no real chance anyone would have a mouse and keyboard. Now consoles can actually compete in the power department, and even support proper PC controls, and now Blizzard doesn't feel like making a console version? Looking at it from a historical perspective, you would think they would of given it one more solid shot since now those games can actually play the way they're meant too. Maybe I'm missing something, maybe Blizzard doesn't like money? Or they feel like they're making "enough" money? For a company that's owned by the people that brought you $15 dollar map packs and plastic instruments (and skateboards) that can cost you a up to and beyond a hundred bucks, I sincerely doubt they feel like they've made "enough."
Log in to comment