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

[Fenixgoon]

Pre-ordered CE for $75 from Gamestop using coupon code from this thread. Only catch is you need to get your pre-tax total over $100.

tempting....

 

[Hacp]

tempting....

Get a wow gamecard then ebay it off for close to 99%.

 

[Gothgar]

hahahaha

I wonder if they have enough fanboys to actually make money off of that, I wont be buying... maybe when it is 20

 

[dank69]

hahahaha

I wonder if they have enough fanboys to actually make money off of that, I wont be buying... maybe when it is 20

So right about the time that SC3 goes into beta then?

 

[crownjules]

hahahaha

I wonder if they have enough fanboys to actually make money off of that, I wont be buying... maybe when it is 20

I know. I mean, Blizzard's sequels are always simple rehashes with little to no new features, are unoptimized console ports, rushed out the door in a bug-ridden state, and have little to no entertainment value. After release they never support their games with patches and additional content. No one could justify spending more than a few bucks on such a POS company's game!

 

[EarthwormJim]

Would I prefer the game to be $50? Of course I would, but I'd still gladly pay $60 for it.

The amount of play time I get out of Blizzard games is astounding compared to other games. I played Diablo 2 for a good 2 years, probably at least an hour every day, maybe closer to two hours a day (that's like a thousand hours). I don't even want to say how much play time I had in WoW.

Lots of $50-$60 games give you maybe 30 hours of play time. Blizzard games can offer thousands of hours. Not to say other games can't offer that much play time either (counter-strike being another for me). You really do get a huge value for your money with Blizzard though.

Considering how fast other PC games go on sale (first tier games too), I think PC gamers can afford to occasionally pay full price ($60) for a game.

 

[EarthwormJim]

hahahaha

I wonder if they have enough fanboys to actually make money off of that, I wont be buying... maybe when it is 20

Good luck with that. It'll probably be 10 years before it's $20. Do you actually buy any PC games at all?

 

[shortylickens]

I know. I mean, Blizzard's sequels are always simple rehashes with little to no new features, are unoptimized console ports, rushed out the door in a bug-ridden state, and have little to no entertainment value. After release they never support their games with patches and additional content. No one could justify spending more than a few bucks on such a POS company's game!

 

[smackababy]

Good luck with that. It'll probably be 10 years before it's $20. Do you actually buy any PC games at all?

It will eventually make it into a battle chest. It might take 10 years, but it will! I love the people crying in the thread though. Saying that because a person is willing to pay $10 extra for a much anticipated game from one of the best companies when it comes to support they are fanboys is quite funny.

 

[dank69]

It will eventually make it into a battle chest. It might take 10 years, but it will! I love the people crying in the thread though. Saying that because a person is willing to pay $10 extra for a much anticipated game from one of the best companies when it comes to support they are fanboys is quite funny.

If they stick to the schedule of releasing 1 x-pac a year, then 1 year after the last x-pac for sales to die down enough to justify the battlechest, that would be a minimum of 3 years from release date to the release of the battlechest. Best case scenario.

 

[smackababy]

If they stick to the schedule of releasing 1 x-pac a year, then 1 year after the last x-pac for sales to die down enough to justify the battlechest, that would be a minimum of 3 years from release date to the release of the battlechest. Best case scenario.

But, I was under the impression each title was a full release not an expansion. So, even a "battle chest" would contain 3 full games.

 

[Fenixgoon]

But, I was under the impression each title was a full release not an expansion. So, even a "battle chest" would contain 3 full games.

correct. each campaign is a full game (equivalent in length to the entire original SC campaign). you're still waiting 2-3 years to get the battlechest containing all three though. if you can wait that long, more power to ya

i will be buying SC2 on release day for sure

 

[dank69]

But, I was under the impression each title was a full release not an expansion. So, even a "battle chest" would contain 3 full games.

Yeah they are calling them campaigns this time, but I hear they are each going to add more units to MP so I still think of them as x-pacs.

 

[Pia]

$60 is peanuts for this game. I'd pay $150 if they asked that much and there were no prospects of the price coming down. I've gotten maybe 30-40 hours of fun from the beta already.

 

[dbk]

I'm gonna pay the $60. Console games are regularly priced at $60 and a lot of them suck compared to SC

 

[Dranoche]

$60 for a release this big isn't bad at all. Add in the fact that we'll actually get support from the developer and the value goes through the roof relative to most other games.

Chances are the MP will be heavily patched at each new campaign release so everybody has the same MP regardless of which campaign or combination of campaigns they purchased; it would be a nightmare for everybody if they did not. And we should get plenty of new maps regularly from Blizzard (look at WC3) for free, too.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Fuck, $60 for only one of the campaigns? Blizzard is getting money-hungry.

 

[nanobreath]

Fuck, $60 for only one of the campaigns? Blizzard is getting money-hungry.

w00t for comprehension failure!

Thanks for the gamestop code, hoping amazon does their usual though. Love their release day shipping.

 

[mchammer187]

preordered a collector's edition

I am not really a PC gamer anymore except blizzard games.

and I will be building a PC for this.

The last 3 games I bought were WoW WoW:BC WoW:WotLK before that was Half Life 2.

$100 is a drop in the bucket and I have since quit wow and console games have been occupying my time but I have been waiting over a decade for this game

I have gotten over 1000 hours each out of SC / WC 3 and WoW

and well over 100 for Diablo so 100 dollars per is nothing to me.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

preordered a collector's edition

I am not really a PC gamer anymore except blizzard games.

and I will be building a PC for this.

The last 3 games I bought were WoW WoW:BC WoW:WotLK before that was Half Life 2.

$100 is a drop in the bucket and I have since quit wow and console games have been occupying my time but I have been waiting over a decade for this game

I have gotten over 1000 hours each out of SC / WC 3 and WoW

and well over 100 for Diablo so 100 dollars per is nothing to me.

I hope you mean $75.

 

[Anubis]

I hope you mean $75.

i preordered mine at amazon, IDK if it costs more, ill gladly pay more to not have gamestop fuck me over again

 

[Glitchny]

i preordered mine at amazon, IDK if it costs more, ill gladly pay more to not have gamestop fuck me over again

^this

Fuck Gamestop, I'll take Amazon any day.

 

[Wreckem]

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.


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.

Let me correct you.

Blizzard is not owned by Vivendi Games. Vivendi Games got gobbled up by Activision. Activison is no longer Activision. Its Activision Blizzard, and has been since Activision gobbled up Vivendi Games and axed almost all of the Vivendi Games titles except for Blizzards.

Activision-Blizzard aren't in dire need of money. They have vaults full of cash off of WoW, Guitar Hero, the Call of Duty Series, and MW2.

The CEO of Activision-Blizzard is a giant douche who plans to try and monitize games the way Nintendo does. He doesn't do shit for the industry as nothing Activision Blizzard is putting out is innovating or new. That includes SC2. The way he treats their developers is completely shitty.

If Kotick fell into a pit of fire tomorrow the gaming world would be in a better place.

 

[EarthwormJim]

Let me correct you.

Blizzard is not owned by Vivendi Games. Vivendi Games got gobbled up by Activision. Activison is no longer Activision. Its Activision Blizzard, and has been since Activision gobbled up Vivendi Games and axed almost all of the Vivendi Games titles except for Blizzards.

Activision-Blizzard aren't in dire need of money. They have vaults full of cash off of WoW, Guitar Hero, the Call of Duty Series, and MW2.

The CEO of Activision-Blizzard is a giant douche who plans to try and monitize games the way Nintendo does. He doesn't do shit for the industry as nothing Activision Blizzard is putting out is innovating or new. That includes SC2. The way he treats their developers is completely shitty.

If Kotick fell into a pit of fire tomorrow the gaming world would be in a better place.

Why would prices of games be reflective of a companies "dire need of money," and why shouldn't a company try to make the most it can. It's a relatively free market. It works because parties are greedy (including consumers).

Also, innovative and new doesn't always equal fun. Fun games aren't always innovative and new either...

But that's enough of that.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Why would prices of games be reflective of a companies "dire need of money," and why shouldn't a company try to make the most it can. It's a relatively free market. It works because parties are greedy (including consumers).

Also, innovative and new doesn't always equal fun. Fun games aren't always innovative and new either...

But that's enough of that.

AB being greedy and jacking their prices for no reason doesn't sit well with people. If they had some dire need of money and could justify it then people would understand. Blizzard basicly built themselves up to where they are by treating their customers as well as possible. Not just putting out great games but supporting them for decades later without gouging them for money along the way; people justifiably just buy their games without question these days. Now, AB is on their way to taking a dump on that in the name of getting a few quarters of even greater profits.