Starcraft 2 costs $100
If you think the billions that Blizzard makes on the back of World of Warcraft have made them less greedy, think again.
They have just announced (at Blizzcon 2008) that Starcraft 2 will not be a single game but in fact a TRILOGY. There will be three separate campaigns: the Terrain will come out first, followed by Zerg and Protoss.
Tell you what – I never cared for single player. I want a game that will allow me to choose a race and fight human opponents. It looks like I’ll have to buy three games – each will probably be around $40, so that’s over $100!
October 13th, 2008 at 8:54 am
You are one cheepa$$ StarCraft fan. I will spend thousands of dollars because of Starcraft 2, because I will have to/want to buy a new PC, because I want to ENJOY the game. Oh, yeah… Another thing… Blizzard is greedy, you say! Because if you were the developer, you would give StarCraft 2 away for free, right? Get real, man! How many YEARS have the team dedicated to this game? IT’S WORTH EVERY CENT!
October 18th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
what??? it’s worth every cent??? no way, what game worth more than 100 dollars??? no way they can charge you for every campaign you play!!! please, dont do this to your fans!!! hope you’ve heard to what happened to SPORE… i’m willing to pay a nice amount, but don’t get that greedy
October 21st, 2008 at 9:17 am
If you take how much time of enjoyment you get out of a game like Startcraft 2 and divide it by how much it costs it is some of the cheapest entertainment there is. People are blowing this out of proportion, All they are doing is announcing the two expansion packs early. No one would be complaining if they had just kept this under their hat. I’ll gladly pay $100 or more for a excellent game, I regularly pay around $50 for average games so I consider this getting what you pay for.
October 21st, 2008 at 1:37 pm
The e-sports community wants the strategy game itself not the single-player campaigns. I hope the “3 games” part isn’t true.
October 21st, 2008 at 11:19 pm
[...] think that the combination of BILLIONS from WoW and the recently announced $100 for Starcraft 2 will make Blizzard sit comfortably on its huge pile of [...]
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
wow
noob there all on the same set so wen u buy the game u get all 3 campaign
October 26th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Let’s all be real on this one……for a gamer, a real one, 100$ is nothing…. beside if the game will have the gameplay at least of Starcraft I money will not be the problem at this level.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Hey, they could charge you to be on bnet, but they let you get on that for free. So should we really complain?
October 30th, 2008 at 2:54 am
Apparently you guys haven’t read blizzards main site. You DONT HAVE TO BUY all 3 games to play Multiplayer. The 2 expansions are purely for single-player play, but they entice you by adding some cool extra multiplayer options, etc weapons, units. It seems like it is the same example as Broodwars???
And as far as I’m concerned, they have 24-30 missions per game? So $100-$150 dollars for 72-90 missions, all taking at least an hour? Thats about a dollar an hour.
Shut your mouths, and buy the stupid games.
November 8th, 2008 at 8:25 am
[...] think that the combination of BILLIONS from WoW and the recently announced $100 for Starcraft 2 will make Blizzard sit comfortably on its huge pile of [...]
November 12th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
gn508r2f70t0cl4i
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Ok, lets put it this way. I spent $60 on The Force Unleashed and maybe got 5 hours of gameplay. Its the same way with a lot of games. So dont complain about $100 when you will get your moneys worth
December 19th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
If you think it’s to high, don’t buy it. It’s not like its food or air! You can live without it. Its called free market, supply and demand. If you wait a year of two it will be one the shelves for $10 bucks
January 15th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
um i have to agree with “UnderLine” on this 1 id gladly pay more for a better game idk about u ppl but if u wanna be cheap then go play with your gameboy or w/e real games cost more. DEAL WITH IT! o_O whining lil brats
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Just to settle some confusion;
When they release the first game, all three races will be playable in multiplayer; all units, buildings, etc will be available in multiplayer. All this effects is the single player campaign.
Thanks,
Z.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Okay, okay, okay.
You all are getting all whiny and pissy over the price of the game. I was upset by the release of three separate games instead of all 3 campaigns being in one, but I’m not crying over it.
It’s one game, and two expansion packs. The Terran campaign, which will of course be the main game, will be released first– the Protoss and Zerg campaigns as expansion packs if players want to select the alternate alien races.
You do not require all 3 for Multiplayer. As Zanarki says: “all three races will be playable in multiplayer; all units, buildings, etc will be available in multiplayer.” I would assume that it’s a little more fun to have all 3 for single player (for those of use that cannot access b.net) than just the Terran pack.
Sure, it’s going to be a little pricey, what isn’t? I’m estimating 40-50 dollars for the main Terran pack, and 30-45 dollars for each expansion.
That’s my guess.
I’m still waiting eagerly for a release date.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:47 am
well hmmm that doesn’t sound much different then WoW at all i would pay any thing to play starcraft 2.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:22 am
Forcing customers to pay full price for 1/3 of the (single player) game is not making filesharing a lesser issue. If there have been a fourth campaign with a new faction/race i would agreed to call it a expansion. Now its just seperated into 3 modules clearly to make more money. Wonder if the music industrie would stop selling full albums if they knew they would get full price for the singles
Artistry vs buisness = Money wins…
May 8th, 2009 at 2:59 am
Heh, just saw the “What game is worth $100″ post.
Two words:
STEEL. BATTALION.
Pwnage!
But to the point…this seems like a standard nü-Blizzard money scheme: Jack up prices, pay-to-play, and wallow on the proceeds. Bastards.
I’m not decrying episodic-based gaming – ValvE is having some pretty notable success with that particular idea. But that’s because their stance is “Shorter, cheaper games, faster”.
Nü-Blizzard, of course, twists this around to make “Shorter, faster games, at the same price as a full-length game”. Yeah. Brilliant.
I miss the days when Blizzard was a group of game-oriented guys whacking out one winner after another. I remember the original Warcraft, and Warcraft II…hell, even the expansion! And Starcraft and Brood War! Diablo! Diablo II! Lord of Destruction!
WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED?! The original developer team left, that’s what, and then Warcraft III came out. Okay, yeah, it was fun. Whatever. Then WoW got dropped like a festering pile of corn-turds, and the mindless chickens that make up the majority of the gamer population lost their heads and decided that it would be jolly good fun to pay $50 to buy a game and then $15 a month afterward just to PLAY the damn thing.
God-damn it, Blizzard! Battle.net was a fantastic idea, and probably got you more customers for the free online play, but now you’re just greedy – you got used to your $150 million a month income (10 million players x $15/month) and the profit is going to your head.
Screw nü-Blizzard – I want the old team back!
May 23rd, 2009 at 6:41 am
Wow, all I got to say is FUCK BLIZZARD. STUPID FUCKS SHOULD JUST GO DIE SERIOUSLY !
June 11th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
[...] that Starcraft 2 is coming out not in one but in THREE retails boxes (for a total of around $100). So even one measly box gets you into Battle.net 2.0 for life? I’ll take it. Diablo [...]
July 4th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
WHAT THE FUCK.
The hours any true lover of SC plays the game would have been worth much more than 100 dollars in wages had they been put to work even at your local burger joint. 100USD is nothing.
Besides, you don’t need to buy all three for multiplayer, so what the hell?
July 16th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
You’ve brought up a good point. Will the first installment only allow you to play terran online? I really doubt that. Probably the Online version will allow you to play all three. And with each new game you will get new units. Because when you play the terran campaign you will still have to fight against zerg and protoss. So those units and races will still be in the game itself.
July 25th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
I dont see what the problem is, it seems like many of you guys would just be happier if starcraft 2 never came out and you didnt have to pay 100+ dollars. Lets do some minor calculations shall we? Lets say each game 50$ each, im pretty sure that the expansions wont be this expensive but lets just say for this point it is. World of warcraft costs 20$ retail, 15$ a month. So for the price of all three starcraft 2 games you will have spent the equivilent of 7-8 months of WOW. Will you play starcraft 2 for longer than 7-8 months? Will you be happy to play it for years without paying monthly fees? I will. I look forward to the game and i hope you guys dont keep whining about the money. 150$ isnt going to kill you. It may be a little pricey but its totally going to be worth it.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:37 am
Anyone who has played the first game and it’s expansion knows that they contained roughly 30 campaign maps. However, they were split between the three races. Blizzard is simply taking a new approach. Provide you with 30 missions per race, per game. Honestly i like it. It give more feeling to the lore behind the games. It makes me at least appreciate the fact that they are putting some thought into all aspects of the game. And honestly people, when has blizzard ever, and im going to put some emphasis here EVER, steered you wrong.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
this is why people are pissed, if your a protoss of zerg fan ( zerg myself) i need to buy crappy terrain and then the zerg one just to play the zerg campaign as the zerg is an expansion, also we have been waiting for a damn long time to be told this, instead of them getting of their asses and just making it quicker, hell its probaly been good enough for ages and they can just go to hell, i mean why dont they just workon one game at a time, instead of diablo 3 as well as starcraft 2.
all i can say to blizzard is that you are lazy and greedy, that is life and knowing this i will still buy starcraft 2, even if it turns out all their úpgrades’turn out to be shit as all hll and i just wasted money i could have spent on better things (if it is ruined)
December 21st, 2009 at 3:50 am
If they charge 29.99 for the first game and 14.99 for the other two, then it would be fair, but if they charge $100 for a full campaign then helll no.
February 4th, 2010 at 5:23 am
first it’s mw2 not supporting dedicated. now it’s 100 for the sc2? I seriously doubt they have been working on it for 10 years! you people make me laugh. your all willing to spend a hundred on a game which will make other companies greedier thus making all future games justifying a $100 bar and you morons are glad to pay it. this is when games like these get hacked because there is a high demand for A cheeper version! when was the last time any of you donated that hundred bucks so some one in the world can have food or fresh water? but justify a stupid game!
i have been looking forward to this game but at hundred bucks to get all 3? forget it! you do realise if you dont buy all 3 you will be limited to the one you bought for online gaming. the restrictions will be on your account when you submit your cd key, forcing you to play one race or buy all.