$150 to Play Full StarCraft II?

Since the announcement that StarCraft II will be shipping as three separate products to be the "StarCraft II Trilogy", there has been several criticising voices against this, in terms of having to purchase several boxes, and possibly paying $150 (£75) just to get the full game. had an interview with Chris Sigaty, where he disclosed the details of these statements, and whether or not players will have to get them all to play simple multiplayer with each other.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
kalos3422d ago

These things had better not be billed at the price of full retail games, else it'll be a very large ripoff just for a single campaign.

Leord3422d ago

I don't really feel like it's a ripoff. You get what you pay for, I think.

I mean, I like classic SC1 multiplayer more than exp anyway ^^

SCFreelancer3422d ago

It depends on the details of this deal if you ask me. If every product offers you multiplayer functionality then additional chapters only offer additional singleplayer. While I love singleplayer alot, that would not be the same value for the same amount of money.

In short: if the value for money is good and remains the same for all three products than I don't see any problem with this setup.

barom3422d ago

I think the first one to come out might cost 50$ and the others that'll follow will cost around 20-30$ as they are kinda like an expansion pack. That's what I'm guessing anyway. I find it hard to believe that Blizzard would rip-off their customers but they are controlled by Activision so who knows. I mean look at how many Guitar Hero's out and seems like a COD every year looks more and more possible.

Raz3422d ago

Am I going crazy, or do you have to buy all three in order to play as the other two species? ..So if I don't fork over the full $150, I'm stuck with a single campaign?

Complete bullcrap, says I. Blizzard is getting greedy - I wouldn't pay that for a good console game, let alone a PC game. Oooh, so they made an extra 15 levels per campaign. I can do that with Staredit, I don't need to pay more of my hard earned money for that! The excuse that "it's just like having 2 expansion packs" doesn't hold water. That's like saying 'you can have a good meal for a minimum price, but the table, cutlery and plates will cost you extra'. These are things that are SUPPOSED to be included!!! Sure you can do without, but I don't like eating off the floor with my fingers; and neither do most other folks.

I guarantee that publishers who shaft their customers are going to have their darling IP pirated - repeatedly and violently. Not by me; but just look at the reaction to Spore's DRM. It isn't just a refusal to's the principle of the thing. People who feel taken advantage of are going to return the insult.

JsonHenry3422d ago

It sounds to me like they are all going to be completely full single player games. You just play as one side (one story) in each of the three for about 25-35 campaign missions. That is more than what you get from some games that charge the same..

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3422d ago
Leord3422d ago

I'm pretty positive to this. I'd have liked a second expansion to SC1 anyway!

SCFreelancer3422d ago

I agree. Even now I would still buy an SC1 expansion ^^.

Leviathon3422d ago

If releasing it in 3 parts means getting the multi-player into my hands quicker then I am all for it. I am not sure if I want to spend over 150 dollars to play the single player campaign though and am hoping they are not as pricey as a full game.

Medievaldragon3422d ago (Edited 3422d ago )

I can somewhat understand this model if they prefer this instead of charging monthly. Think about it as continuous gameplay for the lifetime of the game by this or that price, rather than continuous monthly fees.

If that's what this model means, I guess it is fine.

Leord3422d ago

Also, I think it will also be a testament to that 2.0 won't have a monthly fee or the like! As they are getting continous money from it.

Proxy3422d ago (Edited 3422d ago )

Are they continually developing and expanding the game? No, they just release the game, and then are done with it. Paying for multiplayer would only mean that SC1 has a more active multiplayer than SC2.

Synteny3422d ago (Edited 3422d ago )

I find the criticism to be unfounded, we will not pay 150 dollars for an SC1-like campaign, the quality and quantity of content is on a completely different level.

Besides, from what I heard the content of the other boxes will be single-player only, so those that care only about the multi-player part will have no trouble with it. Also, I do no believe that Blizzard will charge the same amount of money for the "expansions" as for the first package.

Leord3422d ago

Yeah, the "expansions" (part 2 and 3) will probably be a lot cheaper.

Show all comments (37)
The story is too old to be commented.