Network now...FEATURE
Blizzard: We're Not "Milking" StarCraft
By Kris Graft
October 13, 2008
See also:
Related Articles:
Activision doesn’t really factor in, because ultimately the people calling the shots on how this game is going to turn out is the StarCraft II dev team. This trilogy decision was really made by that team.
Since Blizzard announced StarCraft II would be released as a trilogy, with each entry focusing on a single race's campaign, there has been some backlash from Internet goers who speculate the studio is bowing to pressure from new owners Activision to drag out the game with the sole purpose of increasing revenues. "Franchise milking" has been on the lips of more than a few commenters.
But Blizzard's StarCraft rep Bob Colayco told Edge on Monday that it's not like that all, saying that Blizzard's the one "calling the shots."
Some people say that the decision to release StarCraft II as a trilogy is a sign of Activision flexing its muscle over Blizzard—to “milk” the StarCraft franchise. Is the trilogy format related at all to the Activision merger?
No, absolutely not. [Activision] does not play a factor at all. One of the things that [StarCraft II lead producer] Chris Sigaty was saying in interviews this weekend is that we had always planned to do two expansion packs for StarCraft II. This structure just reshuffles how we were going to do things.
Just to give you some context, typically with Blizzard RTSes, we release a single-player campaign that gives players just a taste of each race. The original StarCraft had 10 missions each or so for Terrans and Protoss. When we released the Brood Wars expansion pack, there was another eight or so missions for each of the missions.
All we’re really doing is reshuffling how players are going to experience the single-player content. In StarCraft II, we’re going to have a campaign that focuses strictly on the Terran. It’ll be 26-30 missions long, and you’ll play as Jim Raynor. When we release first expansion set, that’s going to focus on Zerg. So that’s going to be another 26-30 missions strictly focusing on Zerg. When we go to the final expansion pack, it will be the Protoss experience, probably another 26-30 missions.
I think the readers aren’t understanding that there’s a full, gi-normous single-player campaign experience in each of these three products. Instead of getting all three race experiences at once, to make it a more epic experience, we’re focusing on one faction per entry for the single-player.
We’re just waiting to see if Blizzard kneels to its Activision overlord.
[Laughs] Activision doesn’t really factor in, because ultimately the people calling the shots on how this game is going to turn out is the StarCraft II dev team. This trilogy decision was really made by that team.
Effectively, what are we really talking about here? We’ve always done our RTS games with one expansion pack. So now we’re releasing two. Is it really that weird?
I think when people see reports of StarCraft II being a trilogy, with each entry focusing on one race, people assume it’s a piecemeal type thing where they’re paying for an incomplete game, then they can get the next piece for $50, then the next piece for $50, until they finally have one “full” game.
Well, if you want to say “one game” is 90 missions long, then yeah, I guess you’re only getting a third of a game each time. [Laughs] Show me a game where there are 90 missions. We’re giving players a full-fledged single-player campaign experience included in each of the games.
When we ship StarCraft II, the multiplayer will be included. You’re getting all three races there. It’s not like you’re only getting the Terran race, and you’re taking Terran vs. Terran until you put all three together like Voltron or something.
Effectively, the multiplayer will work just as it did before. You’ll get all three races, a bunch of maps, the full Battle.net experience. And when we tack on each of the expansion packs, as we did before, we’ll throw in a couple new units, abilities, maps, upgrades and things like that.
Maybe a lot of the confusion stems from the use of the word “trilogy,” but what we’re trying to get across with the word “trilogy” is that this is an epic story experience. It’s like Lord of the Rings, in terms of the storyline experience. You can play each of them individually, but when you put them together, they tell one epic storyline.
There are also a couple other things floating around from Blizzcon. Paying for extra services on Battle.net—what’s the story with that?
We haven’t talked about specifics with Battle.net’s business model. Nothing is finalized. All I can say is that once we figure out and develop what it is, we’re going to look at it and come up for something that makes sense from a business perspective. It could be anything, and it could also vary a lot from region to region. We’ll take into account what the game is delivering, what’s the right value proposition, what’s worth it to players. And what are players expectations in different regions, because they’re different things. We follow the same philosophy with World of Warcraft.
So as far as StarCraft II goes, bottom line, it was Blizzard that decided on the trilogy format, not Activision saying, “We want StarCraft annualized.”
Absolutely 100 percent. … Each of these games is going to be a full 26-30 game campaign experience. If you compare that to other RTS games, I think it stacks up very favorably from a value perspective.
Blizzard can condense an epic 90 mission campaign into 30, just like Lord of the Rings could've condensed 9 hours of movies into 3. The question here is whether that's a better idea or not. I do want to make it clear that Blizzard, due to the fact that it is spending 3 times longer on the campaign than is usual or even expected, deserves to charge more. If they had to charge the same price for 90 missions as 30 to appease you piraters, then they would've been smarter making an ordinary 30 mission campagain and then releasing two expansion packs, with none of you the wiser. The thing here is that Blizzard is planning on making a truly massive storyline, as opposed to condensing it all into one game. I'm not saying that the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, all condensed into one movie, would not be action-packed and enjoyable. I'm just saying that would would lose a truly massive amount of the story and smaller details, and considering how I am one of the large number of people who play the campaign for fun and rarely ever play online, I think that this trilogy is aimed at people like me. If you don't care about the single player, buy the first game and then pirate/don't buy the others. It won't make a difference seeing as how you do indeed gain access to all the online aspects from the first game. People who suggest that you need to buy all three games for the total online experience haven't checked their sources closely enough.
And this surprises anyone why? C'mon...its Blizz. They made Warcraft, remember? Theyre kings of doublespeak, the Obama of video games. SCII will sell millions, no matter how they sell it.
Blizzard will do things there way, if the reason is they see potential profit in having 3 longer games rather than 1 then that is their choice, we as the consumer can refuse to buy the game if we don't like their practices. We see many other games getting turned into yearly franchises (call of duty for example-realise that is activision product but been that way before they merged with Blizz) but why is it Blizz get people so riled up?
Before I start, heres my premise: "Starcraft is a complete game when 3 races are represented and playable to the same extent in multiplayer AND singleplayer"
SCII therefore is NOT a standalone game. They've used this word " standalone" to trick us in thinking that we're getting a complete game.
Although its milking, but personally thats not why I'm pissed; I don't have problem with $. (I'll explain later why it ABSOLUTELY IS milking later...)
More importantly, if you consider my premise above, I'm pissed because I won't be able to EXPERIENCE STARCRAFT. PERIOD. I'm simply against the idea of waiting for 2nd and 3rd campaign to come out.
They said they've "always" thought of having expansions to SC2. I smell bullshit. I think they just came up with that sentence when preparing for this announcement. 2nd and 3rd so called "expansions" are really pieces of ONE puzzle. Broodwar WAS an expansion. If it was never announced to be released, if it never existed, no one would be complaining because we won't be waiting for something;
Now, however, we WILL be waiting for the 2nd and 3rd part because ONLY THEN will we have experiences STARCRAFT.
Now the milking part: some say "oh its not milking! multiplayer will feature all 3 races!" Actually, they said that 2nd and 3rd releases will have some changes (new units etc) to the multiplayer and people with the first release WON'T be able to play with people with 2nd release. Now....they know that everyone will be like "but but...I dont wanna sit around and play with losers! I wanna play the new multiplayer!!" So therefore, its not just the campaigns, it's the multiplayer aspect that they'll use to get $$.
Bottom line: Release everything at once, no matter how long it takes. For me personally, it's not the $$ that bothers me, it's the insult to the fans by suggesting that the first 2nd and 3rd release is "standalone" when its REALLY 1/3, 2/3 and 3/3.
And just for the fun of, and because I'm pissed, I hope those torrent guys get busy when 2nd and 3rd come out. Actually, since I don't play multiplayer, i'll probably be downloading the first too, and encouraging others to do so as well.
I really wonder what other RTS games you're actually buying or have bought then because most of them do the same thing, they just don't announce it this early.
Take a look at the BlizzCon panels (I urge some of the Edge staff to do the same to see what they've missed to report on) and tell me again this isn't gonna be worth the money.
I think people are being cynical about all this.
Blizzard is one of the very few companies that has consistently held a high level of quality in all of their games. Say what you want about World of Warcraft, but not even that is a bad game.
Why would the sequel to one of their most loved franchises (I would say more loved than Warcraft or Diablo in terms of loyal fans), and their arguably single most acclaimed game, be an exception to this?
Sure, they have become increasingly interested in the money lately. But that's only a natural reaction to a rapidly increasing business (game industry isn't what it was 10 years ago) and of course a poke from their partners -- Activision. Frankly, whatever this guy says means nothing. He wouldn't admit the truth anyway.
My point being that even if customers will have to pay some more for this game, I doubt it will be any major sum. Yes, I too find it irritating to have that little subscription fee taken from the account every month. But as long as I get something for it. It's like Xbox Live, I certainly don't mind paying a few extra bucks to have a maintained and up-to-date online function -- it's worth it.
So before you start rioting about a not yet released game, think about this. If Starcraft 2 turns out to be a really awesome game, the money will get you something that other games cannot offer. If it does turn out to be nothing but crap, don't pay for it. Just don't bitch about a billion-dollar company trying to earn money, or the quality of an inexistent game.
To be completely honest, I don't think I can imagine myself playing through 30 missions of the same faction without getting bored at some point and then stopping altogether. I'm not sure how Blizzard would be able to get over that hurdle of all the levels eventually playing out in quite a similar fashion. As a fan of the original StarCraft, I would much rather prefer a more varied single player campaign between 3 different factions in one game, than 3 different games each with their own respective campaign but longer. I liked the size of the old campaigns, I liked that they weren't 30 levels long, I liked their pacing where you would start out as a complete novice and by the end you would be commanding like a veteran.
Also, what does this mean for the story? Does that mean you're only getting 1/3 at a time or are you getting the whole thing but told from different perspectives?
So for me I can't really see this as beneficial to the gamer. Also, why not just release the game with 30 missions split between the three factions and THEN add the expansion sets each extending the game by another 10 a piece?
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Blizzard, I just can't see myself playing through 30 Terran missions and then waiting to pay for an expansion pack which allows me to play through 30 Zerg missions, and then 30 Protoss missions. I can promise you now, my interest level will have definately waned by that point. And let me add, there would be no way I'd pay full price for those expansions, if the pricing ends up looking like that then it's sheer criminality.
In the end it's got to be about money because as a design decision it stinks. But then maybe it won't. Maybe Blizzard will make the best single-player RTS campaign EVAR in the history of RTSs and this will all be forgotten. However as a natural cynic I can't really force myself into believing this.
Added: And about BNet, I almost forgot, I doubt that is something they'd risk charging for as a whole. What I imagine is that they would set up some sort of tier system where people who pay get access to certain features. The idea that they'd charge you to play against people online or for using the matchmaking system is so offensive that it would be imbecilic for them to go down that route.
Amen to that! And certainly for me, the human missions would be the least interesting, too.
brian
www.brianwoods.com
There is one question I would like to ask : Will we have to buy the expansions to play on Battle.net with the people who have the expansions or will the initial release be enough ?
With Stacraft and Warcraft 3 you had to get the expansions to play with the new units, will it be the same on Starcraft 2 with these "expansions" ?
"Well, if you want to say “one game” is 90 missions long, then yeah, I guess you’re only getting a third of a game each time. [Laughs] Show me a game where there are 90 missions. We’re giving players a full-fledged single-player campaign experience included in each of the games."
Neverwinter Nights, Baldurs Gate, Neverwinter Nights 2, command & conquer: red alert, elder scrolls morrowind etc. Tons of games have missions that go into the hundreds and you get those for the price of 1 game...hmm yea Ill be sure to download each and every last starcraft "trilogy" (that word is so absurd).
Oh come on... you have listed a bunch of RPGs (and then red alert which im sure did not have missions running into the 100's). At least compare like for like, perhaps you want to throw lemmings at them too? thats got plenty of levels.
I agree Blizzard is trying to get as much as possible out Starcraft, but with today's rising gas prices at an all time high... you get my point.
I find it a good ploy, what I dislike is the idea of spending so much [money] over such a varied timeframe. I don't give a DAMN about terran or zerg storylines... I just want to play protoss already.
They should just release them all simultaneously, and have a "Battle Chest" package including all three at a deduced rate [for buying all three at once] in comparison to purchasing all three separately.
I'm losing my faith in Blizzard; not their capabilities, just their greed. As if Blizzard is hurting for money...
I didn't know games need gas to be made ? Especially since gas prices have dropped since the summer around 30%.... Blizzard is just a bunch of greedy sob's who forgot the people who made them huge, just like EA, Bethesda, and a whole multitude of game developers who have no clue what it means to stay loyal to those who were loyal to you.
So essentially if I want to play at all in a sp campaign with a race I don't despise I have to drop at LEAST 100 bucks, maybe 150, plus I have to pay for multiplayer? Looks like another new Blizzard game I'm not going to even touch. This is what you WoW junkies are paying for with your vast amounts of subscription money.
What's next? We'll hear how Diablo III will feature one class with a full experience! Blizzard really wanted to focus on the paladin and give users the full experience of using one class. With their cash and high sales numbers guaranteed, Blizzard should be ashamed. They're starting to sound like corporate crack pushers.
Why do you expect multiplayer payment and a cost of $100 US?
Nothing's been released about pricing for SC2 and the whole "paying for Battle.net multiplayer" has been totally blown out of proportion.
You're obviously upset that games you enjoyed from Blizzard in the past - SC1, Diablo 1/2 - are going to be used to *gasp* make money (how dare they those greedy businesspeople!?), and you've jumped onto the Blizzard-hate bandwagon. Get over your bias, look at it objectively, and stop acting like you're entitled to a game you haven't paid for yet in the precise form you desire. Blizzard continues to make games that a wide audience enjoys, and not the same audience that Nintendo's courting.
games typically retail for $50. it's the standard price, although i am sure "piracy" will soon force pc titles to the same $60 that consoles have. So if you have little interest in playing hoomans, then you have to wait for zergs and buy two games.
brian
www.brianwoods.com
Agreed that nothing's been released on pricing, and battle.net was only discussed as "what makes business sense", and that was a large estimate, but I think that was all a given. It's called reading between the lines, some research, and a bit of sarcasm. If it's anything like their current pricing it will only be $90 total for the first expansion and then $130 total for the second. Man that's really reasonable so I can get in there and play a Protoss campaign, you're right. It's not entitlement it's disgust.
Biggest thing you seem to NOT get is that Blizzard did make LOADS on SC1 and the Diablo franchise. You're a fool if you think that it's unreasonable to suggest Blizzard is greedy. Do they spend their near $150,000,000 a month of wow subscriptions on operational costs? Man, I feel so bad about disliking them now. I've been unreasonable, poor Blizzard, they need money too! It's a creative industry, or at least it's supposed to be. If the new Indiana Jones was released in 3 parts chronicling the perspective of one character so that we could have a more in-depth perspective for that character I'd still call it a crap movie and a horrible money grubbing gimmick.
So how about you look at it objectively from a consumer standpoint and figure out if you really think it's reasonable to be ok with buying a game you don't want to play so you can buy an expansion you don't want to play so you can buy an expansion that you might like if all goes well. Makes good business sense to me only if your consumers are stupid enough to do it. Which I do find insulting.
Again, just going to express the pure point of my comment, I'm not going to touch SC2 if this is the way it's going to be released, and Blizzard has turned more business than developer at this point. This being the "free"market and all, consumers and their opinions on business practices, price point, and product quality is supposed to be what drives business actions.
how are they not entitled ? didnt everyone thats crying foul once pay for Diablo, Starcraft or Warcraft to allow blizzard to get into the position that its in today ? Its like going to a restaurant for 10 years, getting free refills and now all of a sudden the refills are as much as the meal.
They are weighing their options on Battle.net and haven't made any decisions one way or another.
The idea of paying for battle.net makes me queasy.
I really think this will be a very nice product. Blizzards always delivers in my opinion and I dont think theyll make us disappointed this time either.
From what Ive read about the darn thing is that all 3 parts will end at the same time. So its not 3games adding to a long, very long storyline. Its 3 storylines happening at the same time viewed from respective race. Brilliant.
That's exactly as I understood it. Three games telling the same story from the perspectives of three different races.
I also like the comments of the guy below who said that in SC you had to play each race in order. You could not jump to each race at any time. It was like that with WCIII. You had to play the single player campaign in the order the designer wanted. They haven't allowed you to play all races simultaneously since WCII. But back then, once you learned one race the other was exactly like it only texture swapped.
I think the quality of the first 30 missions will be very important... if it feels that the terran single player has been stretched to make 3 separate games seem worthwhile it may put some people off... then again we know that a lot of die hard SC fans will buy all 3 regardless of quality.
If however the story and game play is epic enough to warrant 90 missions then i see no problem with this release... people didnt go to watch the fellowship of the ring and feel cheated that they were only getting a 3rd of the story.
I also wonder how long there will be between each release in order to keep people interested in the sotry
We had to play through each race in order in SC, so as long as the pacing of story is right I will have no issue with it... a pre planned trilogy can allow for a good story in books and films... will be interested to see where it goes with SC.
Ok, I can see Star Craft 2 being a game. Objectively, it has full multiplayer and 30 missions. But most people are used to getting served more than one faction. Acute C&C syndrome. Like asym said, flexibility of strategy and the ability not to play the same faction for too long.
The other two parts of the trilogy (or expansion packs) are not full games for most users. First of all, users do not need another multiplayer access code. Users only buy SC2-Zerg and SC2-Protoss for the missions. They are not full games, because the customer does not need the full game, they are not expansions because these Zerg and Protoss games do not "expand" anything. Graphics are the same, units are the same (Or will Blizzard try to make PvP players buy them for approx. 2 units?), etc. The users are being sold mission packs, that's what they are, let us call them that.
If the player is no fan of Terrans, then the motivation to instantly buy is very low. It's also callous to say "other games only got 30 missions, we will give you no more than 30 missions". How about being competitive by adding more content to the game than C&C and others? And stop calling games epics. They are not epics, they are not presented as poems! Epics have nine identifiers, taking only two of them does not constitute an epic.
truth, nothing but the truth in your post. Blizzard is a bunch of twats which dollar signs in their eyes, I know theyre a business but ethics should be considered to be more important than making triple profit over your fans.
Fully agreed with ALL of your comment, which is weird. Nicely done.
I am going to sound like a fanboy because I am, but after going to Blizzcon and hearing their designers, artists, and even their CEO on the panels, I have full confidence they are making the right decisions to continue creating the outstanding games they have a reputation for making.
The point of single player campaign missions is to familiarize everyone with the intricacies of each race, not as a story point. That's always been my understanding about these kinda things. I think if Blizzard simply divided the story into 3 sections focusing on each different race, but still have all three races have single campaigns in each expansion, people wouldn't be harping on it as much. Already, with this announcement, it just looks like Blizzard is trying to rework the wheel that they had already designed fairly well. In the end, it now looks like Blizzard simply ran out of time and couldn't perfect things as well as they could have and will now automatically be releasing two additional expansions to shore up content and bring together the vision they had in the first place.
the issue of whether or not Blizzard's hand has been 'forced by Activision', is irrelevent. the announcement has been made, they're not going back.
what matters is that the opinion towards this trilogy shift is overwhelmingly negative. period. and this is all before we know anything about the game(s), which means it's going to take a little more than a prepared speech on Blizzard's part to placate everyone.
"Kudos to Blizzard" ? way too early for that. no, they get that after the first game is released and the majority of fans are satisfied, not beforehand.
one question i'd love answered is how this will affect release dates. so many questions...
I disagree with your assessment. While the individual campaigns may easily require less art and utilization of gameplay mechanics, they could also easily traverse a wide variety of environments and spend more time on clever gameplay and fewer levels on "This level gives you an introduction to this brand spanking new building/unit, use that to win!". The overall purchase will also contain more levels than SC1 + Brood Wars. At the same time, most people probably spent more of their time in the multiplayer for StarCraft than they ever did in the solo campaigns, and the initial purchase still delivers all three races for online play.
Kudos to Blizzard on the prompt response, if nothing else they know where their money comes from and how to avoid losing their playerbase.
30 levels for one race is equivalent to far less value than 10 levels each for 3 races. A player of the former will experience less variety in gameplay mechanics and presentation, and the lower number of art assets needed and simpler balancing/pacing will result in a reduced development cost for Blizzard. If Starcraft 2 is being mooted as 'a game and two expansion packs' - and the latter two episodes will have to be released at lower prices for that claim to have any kind of credibility - then consumers who buy the complete set may get an experience comparable to SC1+Brood Wars. However, those who buy only the first chapter will receive a product that falls well below the standards of value that Blizzard themselves set a decade ago.
blizzard is going to fail hard with this attempt, its going to turn off a lot of wouldbe buyers from the series
Exactly, I agree with asym.
SC is about the three unique and thoroughly different species, and even if they're all present in the multiplayer, if there's no singleplayer for two of them out of the box then it's a much lesser experience.
I'd much prefer three shorter campaigns, varied between the races, than one long one.