SC2 Priced: $60 for standard edition, $100 for collector's

[Xed]

I know gamestop is the devil but they still have it listed for 50 bucks.

You can also probably sell that wow pet for 100 bucks to some achievement dope.

 

[KeithTalent]

You can play the AI without an invite.

<-- not a pirate, but thanks.

KT

 

[Lonyo]

Let me know when it's on Steam's weekend sale for $20.

Never?

 

[speg]

Meh, $60 for how many hours of entertainment? $60 could get you into six movies, or about 12 hours. I think there's gonna be a lot of people getting more than 12 hours out of SC2...

 

[SunnyD]

Never?

Only because it will probably never be on steam in the first place.

 

[JoshGuru7]

PC games are usually $50, not $60 which is why I'm sad!

The actual problem here is that PC games are usually $50. Games should range in price *dramatically* depending on the quality, but instead a lot of the mediocre games are overpriced at retail and the good games are forced to addd complications like day 1 DLC and collector's editions instead of just simply charging more upfront. That's bad for everybody.

What's wrong with not wanting to conform with a higher price tag just because? Before you know it it'll be $70.

There's certainly nothing wrong with thinking that SC2 is not worth $60 of your money. What I find inconsistent is believing that Blizzard should charge what you think the product is worth instead of the price that maximizes their profits. Profits are the incentive for producing things that people like and if you care about the long term future of PC gaming then you should care about PC games being profitable.

 

[Nintendesert]

I was hoping the Collector's Edition would have the Zerg or Protoss campaigns.


That being said, the beta plays almost exactly like SC1, so that in and of itself makes it a winner for me. It's that good old fashioned fun with some improvements and slight changes that don't take away from that StarCraft experience.

I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with the Terran single player Campaign. After playing Warhammer, there's at least something to live up to. I really enjoyed that game and playing through the campaign with a friend is good times.

So we'll see how it turns out, Blizzard doesn't usually disappoint though. So $60 it is.

 

[Barfo]

I think I'll get the CE since my original SC CD is long lost anyway.

 

[Lonyo]

I think I'll get the CE since my original SC CD is long lost anyway.

If you had your CD key I think you can register on the Blizzard website and you can download the games from there.

 

[invidia]

Go watch some of the insanely creative strats top players are pulling out of their asses. This is more than a gather, build, and then attack RTS type game. Some of the shit these players are using are by far the most innovative strategies and gameplay I've ever seen in an RTS.

The game has limitless strategies unlike Blizzard's last game - WoW which is just purely countering with specific classes/compositions. Multiplayer itself will be worth for the 60 bucks. Can't say the same for MW2.

 

[jdjbuffalo]

This confirms my fears about the game. They are out to squeeze as much money from gamers as they can. Everyone said that they were doing this when they announced the game was being split into 3 parts but Blizzard said that wasn't true. I wanted to believe them...

While I will reluctantly pay $60 for Starcraft II, I won't be buying their $60 Zerg and Protoss Expansions. I'm not paying $180 for a complete game, no matter how good it is.

 

[ibex333]

See... This is exactly why games are being pirated on the PC and now, more and more on consoles as well! WCIII did not cost $60 when it came out. It was above $50 but not $60 flat. This is ok though. Once Blizz realizes their sales will suffer greatly except maybe in Korea, they will realize they made a grave mistake.

 

[Mide]

They could charge $150 and people would still buy it.

 

[pontifex]

lmao at blizzard fanboys. everyone bitched about MW2 being $60 but its ok for this game.

 

[CPA]

60 bucks for a kick ass game is perfectly reasonable. And despite the bitching, millions of people will buy it.
Theres a concept called "supply and demand" which some folks are not familiar with.
This game took years to make, and they used an assload of highly talented people to do it. They got paid, trust me. No one worked on this project for free..

In fact for as much play time as most of you will put into it, 60 dollars is practically a bargain.

In fact, instead of looking at this as Activision being bloodsuckers, look at it as confirmation that the PC market is alive and well. They would not be charging $60 if the market wasn't there and couldn't support it. That said, I'll wait until it hits half the price.

 

[Maleficus]

If I can get a deal when it comes out I'll get it, max i'll pay is 50 though.

Also, I bought WC3 and expansion on release day for each of them. paid 40 for WC3 and 20 for TFT.

 

[Molondo]

Let me know when it's on Steam's weekend sale for $20.

Generally successful companies don't use steam. Generally.

 

[jinduy]

They could charge $150 and people would still buy it.

this. it's that good.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Well, at $60 for the first third of the game....well, how do you feel about $180? Still that good?

 

[onza]

I'm in for 60 x 3. I don't care.

 

[pontifex]

Generally successful companies don't use steam. Generally.

what!?!?!? do you even use steam?

* 1C Company
* 2K Games
* Activision
* Atari
* Bethesda Softworks
* Capcom
* Codemasters
* Electronic Arts
* Epic Games, Inc.
* Focus Home Interactive
* Her Interactive
* id Software
* Interplay Inc.
* iWin
* JoWooD Entertainment, DreamCatcher
* Kalypso Media Digital
* LucasArts
* Majesco
* Meridian4
* MumboJumbo
* NCsoft
* NovaLogic
* Paradox Interactive
* PlayFirst
* PopCap Games, Inc.
* RailSimulator.com
* Rockstar Games
* Sandlot Games
* SEGA
* Sony Online Entertainment
* SouthPeak Games
* SQUARE ENIX, Eidos Interactive
* Strategy First
* Telltale Games
* THQ
* Tilted Mill Entertainment, Inc.
* Topware Interactive
* Ubisoft
* Valve
* Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment

 

[Attic]

Love Blizzard to death.

I will not pay $60 for this though.

 

[Zenoth]

Blizzard is one of if not the only very successful company that has yet to use Steam, and they probably never will, considering how proud they are of themselves, and with reason, but does that mean they should look at everyone from their golden throne as if others were peasants, that'd be another thing, also why would they *have* to use Steam just because Steam exists? But anyway, it's still Blizzard, it's StarCraft II, on the PC that's comparable to Nintendo releasing a new Zelda game at the same price, a game that would have been awaited by the masses of fans and new ones to the franchise alike for years, they will buy it and Blizzard knows it. I myself have absolutely no problem seeing a game like StarCraft II being priced at $60 for the "regular" edition.

What most complainers (most... not all, I guess) seem to not get in their head is that they aren't obliged to buy the game at release day and at full price. It's a PC game, which means that upon release day and the following week(s) there will be complaints about issues in balancing, performance (there will be complaints about that, we all know, especially from so called PC gamers trying to run it at maximum settings with their four years-old laptops filled up with malware) server connection problems and bugs. Then it will be patched, then the dust will fall a bit and the price will eventually go down, how long it will take may or may not be important, but it will go down, and gamers do have the option to wait (I know, that's impossible for some or many gamers I'd presume) and buy it at a reduced price, Blizzard is not forcing anyone to buy it at $60 and Blizzard isn't going to keep a fixed price of $60 on it for a decade either.

And, I repeat myself, waiting or not, price reduction or not, we're talking about StarCraft II and Blizzard, that's a guarantee of support for the game for years to come, believe me or not but Blizzard have a legacy games group amongst their employees who are responsible for supporting their "legacy" games such as WarCraft III and Diablo II one decade after their release date, how does that sound for some gamers around crying about lack of support from developers nowadays in PC gaming exactly? Now we're talking about a brand new title that millions (literally) of gamers were waiting for, giving Blizzard $60 (figuratively speaking) for such a product and considering how much time, resources, money and efforts they put in it (Blizzard may be a titan in PC gaming development, but SC2 must have been one heck of a project even for them) is in my opinion the least that we consumers could do. I for one would gladly buy their $100 collectors edition with a clear mind that I just want to support them.

Just "how far" can a gamer go to support their personal favorite developers is certainly a subjective matter, but I for one will go as far as paying the concerned beloved company $100 of my earned money to "support" them and tell them thanks, even if the game ends up not being perfect (big surprise?) and patched sixty times under a week, I just can't care less, I know it's Blizzard and they're high in my esteem. I could do the same for BioWare and I could also do the same for Relic or Valve or even id Software. Additionally, Blizzard isn't going to stop there with such pricing and offers (collectors edition, etc), they'll still go on with this with Diablo III, and as much as I want to buy SCII I just know that Diablo III will sell like hotcakes (if not more than SCII) at practically any price it'll end up be.

And, finally, considering that I haven't bought a Blizzard game since WarCraft III: TFT came out I don't care about giving them $60 for SCII, heck some people haven't bought a game from them ever since Lord of Destruction came out ten years ago, while on the other end of the spectrum some people will buy four or five games from another developer within a period of maybe two or three years (EA, for instance) and might be disappointed by half of those games or more when they paid full price for all of them, in the end I'm not sure but I have the feeling that they are the ones wasting money on multiple products rather than paying a bit more for one that they will most likely appreciate.

 

[pontifex]

but but but, if you buy it at $60 that means that you're giving a signal to other game companies that it's ok to charge these high prices! thats another common complaint I haven't seen if this thread yet.

 

[pontifex]

See... This is exactly why games are being pirated on the PC and now, more and more on consoles as well! WCIII did not cost $60 when it came out. It was above $50 but not $60 flat. This is ok though. Once Blizz realizes their sales will suffer greatly except maybe in Korea, they will realize they made a grave mistake.

do you really believe this? MW2 sold millions of copies and it was $60 and it even had much controversy and boycotting around it.

If people want it they won't be worried about the price. This is another HIGHLY anticipated game.