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

[Anubis]

preordered my CE

i love how much some of you bitch

SC2 will break every single video game sales record

 

[KeithP]

And don't forget, that is $60 for part 1 of 3 right?

I wouldn't worry too much about it though. $60 is just an early adopter tax. Wait 6-12 weeks and you will be able to pick it up for $40 or less.

-KeithP

 

[PieIsAwesome]

An additional $10 for a new full game. Don't like the $10 increase but this is my most highly anticipated game, and I bet I will be able to find it for $40 not too far in the future.

And yes I said full game, not 1/3 of a game. Just because it doesn't have a campaign for each faction doesn't mean that the game isn't complete.

 

[Zenoth]

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.

It's also giving a "signal" to Blizzard that as long as they keep rocking the gaming house as they've basically always been doing (at least statistically speaking, which is one thing that not a single gamer can possibly deny) they can charge us $60 for their games. I don't like WoW simply because it's not my type of game, but it doesn't make Blizzard "suck" all of a sudden, WoW even though I don't like it is still a game that is being regularly supported by Blizzard and judging by how many people on the planet play that game I'd be quite arrogant in pretending that Blizzard sucks just because they made a "childish" looking MMORPG, WoW is far from being a dark dot on their white sheet of paper.

I've played DII for approximately six years of my life which is way beyond any other game or franchise I can think of including the "big ones" of my youth and beyond such as Mario Brothers, Zelda, Metroid, Mortal Kombat, Tomb Raider, DOOM, Quake, Twisted Metal, Baldur's Gate, Morrowind, Half-Life, Duke Nukem, Age of Empires, Civilization, Fallout and you name them it still can't compare... it just can't possibly reach the amount of time and eventually social life I lost in a single game. And even if about 90% of the employees responsible for that game aren't working at Blizzard anymore I'm still ready to give them the benefice of the doubt and let them charge their games as they currently do because a company like Blizzard must ensure that the guys it employs aren't coming out of primary school without the knowledge to count until ten, the guys working there are pros and I do believe are dedicated to the games they are working on just as much as if not more than the guys at Valve or BioWare.

Blizzard is just a monument of PC gaming quality that I don't want to deny just because of a damn price on one or even ten of their games. I usually don't say things like that when it comes to seemingly buying things blindly, but in this particular case I am saying that, yes, I will buy SCII at $60 or $100 (depending on which version I end up getting) just "because it's Blizzard". And it would be the same with BioWare when they release Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age 2, or when Valve releases Half-Life 3 or Portal 2, or when Relic release their next DoW II expansion, or when id Software/ZeniMax Media release DOOM 4. There are jewels of gaming I can't just turn my back against simply because they are priced at $10 or $20 "above" a supposed standard. And pricing of a game isn't always a synonym of the game's quality either... it also means that humans worked on it, and they got paid, and the company that paid them need to find some money to keep breathing, lest they do so by intubation.

 

[Red Storm]

... it also means that humans worked on it, and they got paid, and the company that paid them need to find some money to keep breathing, lest they do so by intubation.

Your whole post is good except for that line. Do you really think Blizzard is charging $10 more because they're in need of money? They're doing it because they are greedy (talented) bastards... and unfortunately for us they are well within their right to do it.

I will be waiting for the game to go down in price before I jump aboard. It doesn't matter what I feel the game is worth (it will easily be one of the best games ever), it's a matter of principle and I don't like any developer getting the idea that jacking up prices is a good thing.

 

[Zenoth]

Your whole post is good except for that line. Do you really think Blizzard is charging $10 more because they're in need of money? They're doing it because they are greedy (talented) bastards... and unfortunately for us they are well within their right to do it.

I will be waiting for the game to go down in price before I jump aboard. It doesn't matter what I feel the game is worth (it will easily be one of the best games ever), it's a matter of principle and I don't like any developer getting the idea that jacking up prices is a good thing.

I wasn't referring to Blizzard particularly, it was a figure of speech and a principle of how it is in the market, Blizzard or not all companies pay their their coders, modelers, artists and all their employees and they do need money whatever their status is to pay them and ensure that the company not only rolls but keeps growing up. And in Blizzard's case specifically I still don't think that if they charge StarCraft II at $60 means that they are greedy, it's because they are a big fat-ass company that it gets very easy for the common people to think they are greedy and hate-able.

Just like BioWare when they announced their Cerberus Network in conjunction with Mass Effect 2, suddenly BioWare was corrupted and we lost them to the abyss forever, history repeats itself and most people keep complaining about the same thing, instead of pointing at Blizzard and accusing them of being greedy one should simply speak with their wallet, which has a much greater "impact" than anything else anyone can do in this capitalist society we live in, that's how I perceive things anyway. This whole "Blizzard are greedy pigs" subject due to pricing of games - ultimately - is something that only makes me laugh.

I'm just wondering, what should Blizzard do because they're so big? I mean, it's true, Blizzard does have a crap load of money, they apparently generate more than a billion dollars in revenue per fiscal year since the past four or five years, alright, then what should they price their games at? $10? Even at $50 dollars people would complain and say that they are greedy, they are too big to charge anything at $50 according to their revenue, they have enough money to feed entire starving populations in Africa or enough to fund a Shuttle mission to the ISS by themselves, they swim in the damn green stuff.

My question to some of you here is the following: Does a developer's games price tags is subject to be proportional to their financial success? If your answer is yes, then please, I'm honestly curious, explain me your reasoning. If not then please just do what's best to do if you disagree with that price, and don't by it at that price, think and speak with your wallet, and don't point at them accusing them of being evil pigs with demon horns.

 

[lothar]

I only buy Battle Chest Blizzard games.
I own Warcraft II: Battle Chest, Starcraft: Battle Chest, Diablo II: Battle Chest, and Warcraft III: Battle Chest.
I still have all my original boxes, manuals, and extras that were included in them.

I will buy Starcraft II: Battle Chest whenever it becomes available.

 

[ArmchairAthlete]

every single console game is 60$ is the norm not sure why you are bitching

anyway time to preorder the CE

They're traditionally more expensive because a portion of that goes to the company that made the console in licensing fees. Of course, that doesn't exist with PC titles.

I don't see them having any problem selling a bazillion copies at $60. If the value doesn't add up to $60 for someone they can just not buy it or wait for an eventual price drop.

 

[Ichigo]

Your whole post is good except for that line. Do you really think Blizzard is charging $10 more because they're in need of money? They're doing it because they are greedy (talented) bastards... and unfortunately for us they are well within their right to do it.

I will be waiting for the game to go down in price before I jump aboard. It doesn't matter what I feel the game is worth (it will easily be one of the best games ever), it's a matter of principle and I don't like any developer getting the idea that jacking up prices is a good thing.

$50 is sort of an arbitrary limit though. Ideally, crappy games should be priced lower and quality games (like this might be) should be priced higher. I have little reason to doubt that SC2 @ $60 is a better value than most other games @ $30, but people seem to complain based on the price itself, completely disregarding the value that they're getting.

 

[s44]

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

+1

 

[JoshGuru7]

Do you really think Blizzard is charging $10 more because they're in need of money?

So if you did a great job at your work last year, does that mean you can accomplish nothing this year and your employers should still be grateful to have you around? Blizzard is very much in need of money. They are a division of Vivendi SA and traded as VIV on the Paris exchange. Sure they've made a ton of money in the past, but that carries with it the expectation that they will keep making a ton of money in the future.

It doesn't matter what I feel the game is worth (it will easily be one of the best games ever), it's a matter of principle and I don't like any developer getting the idea that jacking up prices is a good thing.

So you think it will be "one of the best games ever" and worth $60, but you don't want to buy it because you're afraid of sending a signal that developers can charge $60 for one of the best games ever. The best thing that can happen to PC gaming is developers realizing that they can charge a lot more for really good products then they can for mediocre ones.

Think of how ridiculous your argument sounds applied to other products. You'd really like a certain car and think it's going to be one of the best ever. You can easily afford it and think it's worth the asking price, but you decide not to buy it because you don't want to send a signal that they can charge more for this car than they can for a $15k econobox.

 

[CurseTheSky]

A World of Warcraft mini Thor in-game pet that can be applied to all World of Warcraft characters on a single Battle.net account

Are you fucking kidding me?

 

[Bateluer]

60 dollars for 1/3rd of a game? I'll wait until its either 30-40 dollars or the battle chest. I don't have the time to play many games as it, and this is a disturbing trend in the industry. Less content for a higher price tag is not the way we want gaming to go.

 

[Anubis]

A World of Warcraft mini Thor in-game pet that can be applied to all World of Warcraft characters on a single Battle.net account

Are you fucking kidding me?

not sure if you are happy or pissed about this? its not uncommon all the WoW CEs came with special pets and or something else

 

[shortylickens]

60 dollars for 1/3rd of a game? I'll wait until its either 30-40 dollars or the battle chest. I don't have the time to play many games as it, and this is a disturbing trend in the industry. Less content for a higher price tag is not the way we want gaming to go.

OK, once again people are not paying attention.
It IS a whole game. When you buy all 3 you will be getting 3 full games.

 

[Ichigo]

60 dollars for 1/3rd of a game? I'll wait until its either 30-40 dollars or the battle chest. I don't have the time to play many games as it, and this is a disturbing trend in the industry. Less content for a higher price tag is not the way we want gaming to go.

Let's compare SC2 to any other retail game. What makes it 1/3rd of a game besides the fact that you know 2 more SC2-based titles are coming? Objectively, how do you know there is less content in SC2 compared to MW2, AC2, ME2, etc.?

There are reasons to dislike SC2 (LAN, LAN, and where the hell is LAN), but this pricing issue you guys have is psychological. Not that any of us know for sure, but like I said before, SC2 may probably have more content/dollar, or "value", than most other games but you guys are looking at this with a completely narrow mindset.

 

[Magusigne]

OK, once again people are not paying attention.
It IS a whole game. When you buy all 3 you will be getting 3 full games.

Don't even bother Shorty..it's futile..

OMG WTF 1/3 of a game~~@!! Blizzard is teh fail.

Someone should sticky this shit-

"The "1/3" of the game your referring to is approximately equal to or greater than ALL THREE RACE CAMPAIGNS IN THE FIRST GAME. You still get to play ALL RACES in multiplayer. You buy the other races later when they release them."

 

[Anubis]

OK, once again people are not paying attention.
It IS a whole game. When you buy all 3 you will be getting 3 full games.

its a hard concept apparently

 

[Beev]

Hmm, I came in here to denounce all of the "1/3 of a game" people, but it looks like that's already being taken care of

I'm in for $100 for all three collector's editions.

 

[heat901]

I might wait it out for a battlechest or buy them when each one comes out...it really depends on how the SP is. I know a lot of people are all MP, MP this MP that... MP is fine and all but Starcraft could alone stand on just SP and probably would have done just fine. Broodwars SP was epic...

Only problem with Blizzard games is they hold their value for so long that even 10+ years later SC and BW in a battlechest still cost 20 dollars??? Its like buying a honda...even at 200k miles they are still worth some money.

 

[Bateluer]

OK, once again people are not paying attention.
It IS a whole game. When you buy all 3 you will be getting 3 full games.

No, its 1/3rd of a game. A longer campaign does not mean a better campaign, I bet half the missions will be filler and fluff. I was laughed at and derided a few months back when I said Blizzard would charge 60+ for each episode of SC2.

You guys are missing the point. Publishers raise the price of product while at the same time decreasing the length and quality. Publishers add restrictive DRM to the game, limited activations, online only play, malware, etc, and people still keep buying them. This sends the message that this behavior is okay, continuing to buy it only makes the situation worse. The odds are good that the second and third installments of SC2 will be 70, or 80 dollars. Especially since so many people seem to be willing to pay the higher price tag.

I don't have a lot of time to play games any more, so I only buy one, maybe two titles in a calendar year.

While I'm certain I will pick up SC2 at some point, it won't be until I can get all of the game for around 40 to 50 dollars.

On WC3, not sure where it cost 60 dollars at release, I distinctly remember buying the game for 40 within a week of its release. Then again, it was at AAFES, so might have something to do with it?

 

[smackababy]

I love people "complaining" about the price point. Obviously, an extra $10 is such a huge deal. I remember reading somewhere that $60 was the actual price point of PC games, but retailers charge $50 as the standard price.

As I said before, I feel the CE offers a value worth the price and will be purchasing it.

 

[Magusigne]

snip

For the most part I skip Campaigns anyways...so its all about Multiplayer for me and probably a decent portion of people

 

[dguy6789]

You're insane, overly cynical, or have never played the beta if you don't think SC2 is going to be worth $60.

 

[Bateluer]

For the most part I skip Campaigns anyways...so its all about Multiplayer for me and probably a decent portion of people

The campaign will likely be the only part of the game that I play, it contains the game's story and characters.