So most StarCraft fans have heard that they're splitting the singleplayer campaign into 3 different boxed retail games, each singleplayer campaign shall be 26-30 missions long but of course, now, if you want what most perceive to be the full singleplayer experience you'll be buying 3 boxed games instead of just one.
The first benefit of this should be obvious however, the original StarCraft's singleplayer campaigns comprised of 10 missions per race, now we are getting nearly triple that count per race.
There is very little different with this Trilogy idea than Half-Life 2's Episodes or even Halo 3's Recon, or the Mini-Expansions of Sins of a Solar Empire.
From a development standpoint, the Terran singleplayer experience we know has a mercenary element to it, you pick planets to go to, missions to do, but that makes sense for the Scavenger-mentality that is the Terrans in the storyline, the Zerg and Protoss singleplayer experiences would not, could not, handle in this way. So, instead of developing both a shortened overall 3 races 30 mission campaign with a simplistic across-the-board mission initiation method similar to the original StarCraft we are getting almost 90 missions and unique storytelling elements per race.
For a game franchise that sees a release every 10 years there is no consumer cost-cutting or compromising in this development plan.

But the multiplayer component will be solidly the same?

Jesus, i have to fork over around $160 to finish the starcraft story? AAHHHHH!

Money making scheme!

Not the first blizzard game that term could be applied to (read: World of Warcraft)

Now, I don't know that much about the original Starcraft, but I was thinking about buying this game just because of the multiplayer. I wasn't even giving the single player a thought. Should I?

"Money making scheme!

Not the first blizzard game that term could be applied to (read: World of Warcraft)

Now, I don't know that much about the original Starcraft, but I was thinking about buying this game just because of the multiplayer. I wasn't even giving the single player a thought. Should I?"

But the multiplayer component will be solidly the same?

Each new single player campaign will come with upgrades and changes to the multiplayer. The main difference here is that instead of giving you a tacked-on extension of the single-player experience as you often find in an RTS expansion, each title comes with a fully realized campaign.

Chris explained that each of the three installments would play a bit differently as well, with different meta-game types in each. The initial campaign would feature Terran Jim Raynor, with a meta game that involves upgrading technologies. The second focuses on the Zerg, with a meta-element involving diplomacy. I mentioned Star Control, and Chris said that that sort of gameplay element had been discussed.

So why the change? It really comes down to scope. "We always start with this really gigantic scope", Sigaty explained. Basically StarCraft II got bigger than they expected. They have a huge, solid Terran campaign that needs a bit of fleshing out at this point, and once you figure out the dev time needed for the other two campaigns it would have delayed the game for years. After months of discussion, this was their solution.

Jesus Christ i cant wait!

And this 3 box thing is just fucking awesome. Its 3 SC2's pretty much.

Damn this game is gonna be EPIC

Depending on the amount of content in each retail box being satisfying for the price, this could either be absolutely stabbing the consumer in the heart, or be the fucking most awesome thing ever to come out of Awesome Town.

I'm going with Awesome Town, because its Blizzard and I actually trust them.

All i'll say is that this Starcraft is one the best games ever, and based on the amount of time I put into Starcraft I'd say it was worth $140, and Starcraft II looks even better. My friends brother works for Blizzard, and he says this game is going to be one of the best games ever made for any platform...

"MisoRonery said:

"because its Blizzard and I actually trust them."

The same people who charge 25 dollars to change servers in wow?"

As long as they don't wait a year for each expansion to be released and don't charge $50, I'm happy with it. Both of which seem unlikely.

"Levio91 said:

"MisoRonery said:

"because its Blizzard and I actually trust them."

The same people who charge 25 dollars to change servers in wow?"

Lol good point."

I'm actually pretty comfortable with this method.  It's like three separate games, and the campaigns should have a fair bit of meat to them.

It matters.  Is it $150 or $90? 
And since you mentioned Halo: Recon- how much will that cost considering its more of a sideproject.  Bungie has said they're looking at a possible budget title

Personally, I think Blizzard may be milking it here abit though- im really using this of the fact that wow is $15 per month and has a good amount of expansions. 

I'm torn on it. I want SC2 but 3 games? No thank you.

I never really cared for the campaign in Starcraft before. I blasted through it without paying attention to the story and started playing multiplayer right after. So if multiplayer is still intact, then I guess I'm only buying one box.

/me orders the first box and then gets out his favorite P2P file sharing device

This is Blizzards second strike for the day. 1, they are adding a fee to Battle.net 2.0 and now 2, they want even more money so they split this thing into 3, im very disappointed.

"So most StarCraft fans have heard that they're splitting the singleplayer campaign into 3 different boxed retail games, each singleplayer campaign shall be 26-30 missions long but of course, now, if you want what most perceive to be the full singleplayer experience you'll be buying 3 boxed games instead of just one.
The first benefit of this should be obvious however, the original StarCraft's singleplayer campaigns comprised of 10 missions per race, now we are getting nearly triple that count per race.
There is very little different with this Trilogy idea than Half-Life 2's Episodes or even Halo 3's Recon, or the Mini-Expansions of Sins of a Solar Empire.
From a development standpoint, the Terran singleplayer experience we know has a mercenary element to it, you pick planets to go to, missions to do, but that makes sense for the Scavenger-mentality that is the Terrans in the storyline, the Zerg and Protoss singleplayer experiences would not, could not, handle in this way. So, instead of developing both a shortened overall 3 races 30 mission campaign with a simplistic across-the-board mission initiation method similar to the original StarCraft we are getting almost 90 missions and unique storytelling elements per race.
For a game franchise that sees a release every 10 years there is no consumer cost-cutting or compromising in this development plan."

"/me orders the first box and then gets out his favorite P2P file sharing device"

"Relys said:

"/me orders the first box and then gets out his favorite P2P file sharing device"

/laughs at you when you can't enjoy any multiplayer because the two expansions add too many additional features."

"Rowr said:

"Knives said:

"Relys said:

"/me orders the first box and then gets out his favorite P2P file sharing device"

/laughs at you when you can't enjoy any multiplayer because the two expansions add too many additional features."

the multiplayer will be the same across all versions i thought?"

"Each new single player campaign will come with upgrades and changes to the multiplayer. ""

"Knives said:

"Rowr said:

"Knives said:

"Relys said:

"/me orders the first box and then gets out his favorite P2P file sharing device"

/laughs at you when you can't enjoy any multiplayer because the two expansions add too many additional features."

the multiplayer will be the same across all versions i thought?"

"Each new single player campaign will come with upgrades and changes to the multiplayer. ""

fuck this is even worse than i thought, especially if serbsta's claims are true.

Since when do Blizzard need more money?

Its not as if they wont make a few bucks going the standard route. At this stage they stand to make nothing off me.

edit - Having some flooding issues i see knives  ;)"

Even though I love this idea, and understand why they're doing it this way I do want to say one thing.

Of course it is about money. The very fact that they have people saying 'Shit, now I gotta spend $150 to get the whole story? FUCK YOU Blizzard?' is a great indication on their target consumer for their product. They know they'll make more money doing this, and as a business; that is smart planning. Blizzard have alot to show Activision that their aquisition is going to continue to be not only as profitable as it was for Vivendi but an increasing money earner for shareholders.

Still, going to be great to see these releases coming out.

"xruntime said:

"Money making scheme!

Not the first blizzard game that term could be applied to (read: World of Warcraft)

Now, I don't know that much about the original Starcraft, but I was thinking about buying this game just because of the multiplayer. I wasn't even giving the single player a thought. Should I?"

Well God Forbid a stock-market listed company wishes to make money. I'd be interested in the singleplayer, the gameplay elements Blizzard introduced in StarCraft, as well as its' expansion pack which was one of the first expansion packs that did not merely tac on multiplayer maps but had a new singleplayer campaign, new units etc. shows what Blizzard can do for the genre in terms of streamlining execution of gameplay really make for some interesting encounters in a singleplayer environment."

This is great news for me since my main interest in the game are the single-player campaigns. I just suck too much at RTS games in general to have any interest in multi-player. I'd just get owned by all hardcore Koreans anyway. :(

"Even though I love this idea, and understand why they're doing it this way I do want to say one thing.

Of course it is about money. The very fact that they have people saying 'Shit, now I gotta spend $150 to get the whole story? FUCK YOU Blizzard?' is a great indication on their target consumer for their product. They know they'll make more money doing this, and as a business; that is smart planning. Blizzard have alot to show Activision that their aquisition is going to continue to be not only as profitable as it was for Vivendi but an increasing money earner for shareholders.

Still, going to be great to see these releases coming out."

my guess is $300

at least that will be retail in aus.

(im to the understanding kindgalaxy is aus.)

What a crock of assbutter.

I wouldn't really call it a trilogy but yea I'll still buy at least one of those.  I'll try to get some Korean like skills at multiplayer hopefully.  Not sure which campaingn to choose but I'll probably just pick up the first one taht is available.

"my guess is $300

at least that will be retail in aus.

(im to the understanding kindgalaxy is aus.)"

I'll say this outright, blizzard wants our money. Just like any other company does.

BUT, I cannot predict the future so I am going along with this idea (much like any trilogies) of wait and see. Now, to get the entire starwars/Harry potter/lordof the rings/matrix experience, you had to shell out more money for each volume in the trilogy. But, you would only be paying the full $150 if you like it enough to keep going. Otherwise you would just enjoy the first one and say fuck it, I ain't giving you any more money leaving you still paying the same 50 bucks that you normally would have.


For people that complain about sheliing out all the money, you know you want to get the full experience (but is too FN cheap to buy it)
For people that say they will probably get one game and go MP forever (you ain't spending more than what you normally would have anyway)


This is a trilogy, so as long as blizzard keep wowing me with each campaign I'll keep buying them.

If the campaign is as in-depth as they say i'm cool with it

"Pibo47 said:

"Levio91 said:

"MisoRonery said:

"because its Blizzard and I actually trust them."

The same people who charge 25 dollars to change servers in wow?"

Lol good point."

I'm not even going to respond to Levio because he has the mental capacity of a gnat. 

Pibo, I trust their ability to make a quality product that I will feel happy about paying retail price for.  I never needed a server transfer in the time I played WoW, and I can understand their wanting to make it prohibitively expensive to keep ninja-looters, or just assholes in general,  from jumping servers every time people catch onto their bullshit.  And who minds them making a few extra bucks off of server transfers?  What is this communist Russia?  If people pay the price you set for it, you sure as hell don't lower it. 

Anyhow, they make great games is all I'm saying."

Blizz needs to be carefull with this.  They need to not over charge 50 for the first and 30 for the other two seems fair enough.  More important they need to release the other parts with in a years time other wise graphics and relavents will suffer.

I don't see the problem in money, unlike most people. Will the ultimate cost be around 150 bucks? So what? It Will be 150 $ over probably 4 years. 150 $ for 3, full length games? With fully featured singleplayer campaign? With new features to multiplayer? Absolutely no problem paying 50 $ for each product.

as I said before it is a cheap policy for earning more money  !!!!!!!!!!!!!

"as I said before it is a cheap policy for earning more money  !!!!!!!!!!!!!"

STARCRAFT II TRILOGY

STARCRAFT: CRITICAL MASS
STARCRAFT: PROVING GROUNDS
STARCRAFT: CHAIN REACTION

"daniel_beck_90 said:

"as I said before it is a cheap policy for earning more money  !!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Nobody forces you to buy it. You can wait and buy some "StarCraft II Trilogy Complete Collection", or whatever the name of the "complete experience in one box" will be. And this StarCraft II Battle Chest will probably be priced like one game, not three. And let's not forget that we don't know the price tag for any part of the Trilogy..."

Hope they 'd release a Complete pack or something, that would be better "

"daniel_beck_90 said:

Hope they 'd release a Complete pack or something, that would be better "

I belive they will release something like that, makes sense. And Blizzard is always releasing Battle Chest edition of their games."

This sucks, I could see them doing this "three full priced games" for the single player but for everyone who's in to multiplayer only - this sucks balls. Unless there will be a cheaper multiplayer content DLC for the games, wich I doubt, I don't think anyone will be very happy about this.
"