This week the Internet erupted into its latest games industry "scandal" - Blizzard has removed LAN play from its upcoming strategy sequel StarCraft II, forcing multiplayer gamers to log in to the Battle.net service. Some people have taken an accusatory stance toward Blizzard on this little detail, even to the point where the controversy has begun to overshadow the flood of hype-building, detail-filled game previews that hit the Web at the start of the week. Petitions have been opened online. Commenters swear they won't buy the game on principle.
Jason Hall, currently an indie developer and former Blizzard employee, has been sharing some really interesting stories from his long career in the industry for a while now. Some of them are truly insightful, while others may seem depressing.
I’m a little shocked that StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty sold only around 6 million copies. The original StarCraft did over 11 million. Maybe Blizzard was too leisurely in releasing StarCraft 2? Starcraft 2 came out 12 years after it’s predecessor.
Im surprised too. Starcraft was still a huge name in 2010. It was kinda the only new RTS around and other genres like MOBAs hadn't really kicked off yet. I do remember at the time sentiment around the game was
pretty angry the game was being split into 3 but I doubt that would have impacted sales to that degree
For a long time I believed StarCraft II sold on par or better than its predecessor. There was so much hype for the game. Plus it had a pretty strong E-Sports scene for a few years.
Myself and half a dozen friends all bought StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty and played it religiously for a full year. While I bought the expansions, most of my friends did not. RPGs seem to be a generally low selling genre.
I'm not shocked at all. This was an early example of Blizzard being greedy. Instead of releasing a complete experience, splitting Starcraft 2 in 3 parts so it could make us purchase it 3 times if we wanted to know the whole story and play story mode with the other races.
I originally had that stance. However, Wings of Liberty, was just as long, if not longer than StarCraft 1. The expansions were of decent length too and added a good amount of additional content.
and people wonder why we are having mtx in everything. i blame the people who actual buy them.
It's interesting he used Brazil as an example of the importance of regional pricing. Nowadays many companies on Steam are setting their prices in Brazil as high as, if not more than, their price in USA. I simply refused to buy a few games when I noticed that's the case.
The best sci-fi games ever made range from diving into the depths of humanity to finding hope among the stars.
Don't really agree on Dead Space being number one. But usually come down to preference. Alot of good games on the list. I was hoping to see Aliens vs Predator by Sierra on the list, as it was a great game. Anyways for me the number one is still Halo but Mass Effect was really good up to the infamous ending of the third game.
I would put Flashback on my list. Its got such a great tone and background design. The cutscenes were pretty good too.
DEAD SPACE 2 as number 1? Really? I've only ever played DEAD SPACE 1 (without finishing it) and, sure enough I liked it a lot, and have been yearning for getting to grips with an hd remastered trilogy for the PS4/XBox One/PS5/XBox Series X/S, but what about Deus Ex Human Revolution & Mankind Divided? Alienation (to quench our thirst for twitching fingers' top-down dual-stick shooters)? Or even Cyberpunk 2077 (once the game has been re-released and all the kinks have been ironed out)?
If not at the #1 spot, it seems to me these games deserved to be on the list somewhere.
But what really strikes me as unfair is, if you're going back to the PS3/XBox 360 era with DS2, how could you forget to mention Killzone 2 & 3? The Resistance games? When it comes to Sci-Fi FPS, it's inadequate not to pay your respects to those stellar franchises! Heck, even the Crysis trilogy should've been there IMHO.
A team of modders is working on a Starcraft Remake in Starcraft 2, and has released a brand new version of it.
Playing through Battlenet might produce slightly higher latency times than on LAN.
But for the reasons stated in this article, I agree that we should have faith in Battlenet.
Also considering that this is the company that runs the largest MMORPG server in the world. People need to get over the fact that times change and so do games.
Didn't they learn from EA and Spore??? One of the things that made this game popular was the LAN parties, I only played on Battle.NET to up my skills for the LAN parties. The other thing that made this game so good is you didn't need a killer PC to run it, it ran on our crappy school computers. We would drag our massive PC's around just to have Starcraft battles over LAN. Could we have just connected to battle.net and played? Yes, but LAN games made it fun an elite private club.
LAN parties suck.