Starcraft II - All Comments

healthguyinsurance — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:14:16 GMT

Hi I love star craft ever since I was in high school i've been playing this.

oopomopoo — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 19:00:47 GMT

What happened to megamans post? :o

oopomopoo — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:39:02 GMT

Yay triple post, but this for for Meatpieandwow.

"--The delay of Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty to 2010 doesn't affect the release schedule of any other Blizzard games, said Morhaime. He said once it launches, work will immediately begin on the second installment in the three-part game, Heart of the Swarm. "

I dont think D3 will be released in 2010, but this is not pushing D3 back. The developers that are working on SC2 are different from those working on D3. The only similarities would be environmental designers and character designers. (A few others, but nothing major.)

oopomopoo — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 05:30:47 GMT

Oh and a blue post by Cydra "Today we announced that StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty will not be ready for release by the end of 2009. Over the past couple of weeks, it has become clear that it will take longer than expected to prepare the new Battle.net for the launch of the game. The upgraded Battle.net is an integral part of the StarCraft II experience and will be an essential part of all of our games moving forward. This extra development time will be critical to help us realize our vision for the service.

Our mission is to develop games that deliver an epic entertainment experience. As part of that commitment, we will always take as much time as needed to ensure that our games and services meet the expectations of our players and the standard for quality that we set for ourselves as developers. As we work to make Battle.net the premier online gaming destination, we’ll also continue to polish and refine StarCraft II, and we look forward to delivering a real-time strategy gaming experience worthy of the series’ legacy in the first half of 2010."

So ya, apparently activision is the entire reason they are delaying the game.

oopomopoo — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 05:26:16 GMT

I dont think money was any reason blizzard pushed the game back. In my opinion, Blizzard is THE most successful business in the industry with the 'best' games. Every game, except for 1 or 2 that blizzard has created has been a massive success. They have basically all the finances they need to push the game out when they want.

However i doubted now because most people dont want to spend money, especially on games. Even with christmas coming around, many people will be saving their money. This leads to the following: Blizzard postponing the game for more testing / polishing / more money, or releasing it relatively soon with less testing / less polishing / less money.

If you were the CEO of Blizzard, which of these would you do?

Meatpieandwow — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 03:38:55 GMT

This confirms my fear that Diablo 3 won't come out till 4th quarter 2010.

souliisoul — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:58:27 GMT

oopomopoo,

In my region I get 1000+ easy and worst case it actually hit 3000+.

Yes it is Blizzard's game but at the end of the day, They don't have a game if we do not play the game.

Actually I don't want Blizzard to fail but stop using the old marketing scenario of trying to control everything and thats why it is located in USA in terms of servers. Only reason they put servers in China was because 5 million plus chinese is a lot to lose if they are complaining about lag.

Interesting that WoW have always gone after gold selling accounts, but have not banned a lot of people in China who actually collect the game and sell it to the merchants.

Note: Lag is due to number of issues but you will not see much lag if you located in USA and have a decent broadband service, good network card and decent amount of RAM.

I ran MACPRO with 8Gb memory quad version 2.8Ghz and 30" screen. My lag is all to due to server location.

oopomopoo — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:32:48 GMT

Btw just curious, what is your latency where you currently live? (India, correct?)

I play with roughly 200-300, in Texas. I just want to know what type of latency difference we are actually dealing with, as that is the most stated problem with no lan.

oopomopoo — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:37:34 GMT

Soul, i try not to put people down. However if they have no will to even accept my view, why should i? For example, llama understood, as i understood him. I treated him with respect.

I know that major piracy doesn't occur due to LaN, but it is still piracy none the less. I do understand that this is not excellent news, as I enjoyed playing LaN with my family (As i said in another post.) Hopefully they do add more servers around the globe, but until then there is not much to do. This is Blizzards game, they can create it however they want.

By the way, dont get the wrong idea. I do actually want LaN in the game, but i understand why Blizzard is not putting it in. I also agreed with Naxeem, except for the Blizzard turning into EA.

At least be glad they announced they were not adding LaN. I can tell you quite a few games that did not.

souliisoul — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:57:53 GMT

oopomopoo,

I had the chance of living in Europe, USA, Singapore Australia now India. I understand a lot of people's issue with SCII not having LAN support and if you read the comments slowly and understand the reaction, you will understand the fuss. BTW MAJOR piracy does not occur due to LAN support being available, not sure where you got that information from but it is wrong in my experience and opinion.

IF we go by Blizzard experience with WoW were the only servers in region are China, since there have 5.5 million players, then I very much doubt Blizzard will spend any money on regionalization of servers. It will be like WoW, Oceanic server sitting in USA!!

Read Naxeem message because he is correct in his comments.

Btw I live in second most populated country in the world and Blizzard has not ever tried to give us a server or sold its game. So don't tell us to hope.

Lastly stop putting people down, since everyone is allowed their opinion, be more constructive in your feedback. Just my opinion of you.

Soul

oopomopoo — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:31:41 GMT

Ok llama, i see your point and agree with it 100%. And sorry about the bot misinterpretation, thought you meant spam bots in channels. ;)

Airddragon... I dont remember reading where you have to be loggin in just like steam. Besides, does it really matter? a good game is a good game. Quit crying because ONE feature you will use on rare occasions is not in the game. What do you have against having to log in to play a game? Do you hate MMOs? They require you to log in. Do you hate Xbox and PS3 games? They have achievements (Which is the main reason they require you to log in.)

What? What is it that makes having to log in such a bad thing? And keep in mind you will not have to log in to play SC2.

Digiatal_Seraphim — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:30:50 GMT

I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'm blown away by this, but it definitely snatched a double take. Blizzard had and still has the gaming market by the jewels in popular games; Diablo, WC, SC, WoW, they can do whatever they want.

airddragon — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:26:38 GMT

I stated it before and I think I need to state it again.

How is this different then requiring you to log on and send a message to the server to play?

Here let me help you with that answer. It isn't. This is the same crap as the Spore DRM all prettied up and packaged to look cleaner. Its still a dirty policy and Blizzard knows there are better ways to prevent piracy. Make downloadable buyable content that is worth it is one.

I didn't buy Spore and I will not be buying this PoS because of this. Period. If Blizzard does the same thing with D3 I will also not buy it. If I wanted to buy a game and have to log in for it each time I would go buy some steam games. And at least most of those still allow/have LAN.

naxeem — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:08:06 GMT

I don't know why, but some here are missing several critical facts:

- forcing B.net will not stop piracy:

- piracy is mostly used for singleplayer as multiplayer players usually buy

- there is 0 to none chance Blizzard will prevent B.net server simulators that will be available very soon after the release

- believe it or not, but RTS games are played where no Internet connection is available too. LAN parties are one of the most successfull nerd summer fun in my country, not mentioning islands with no phone (only electricity available), student apartments with no Internet etc.

Blizzard is doing this because they can: their arrogancy since world of cash has reached heights not even God has seen.

Blizzard is slowly becomming what EA is and there is no way out.

llamaschool — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:06:50 GMT

I understand what you are saying oopo, but I also think that players are very justified in their fuss, seeing as LAN is much more largely used than you think. The fact is that people are angry that they DO have to put up with lag just for the sake of playing with someone sitting next to them.

You compared removing clans from games to LAN in your post, which I think sums this whole thing up very nicely. They could be compared if, for example, Blizzard removed clans from Starcraft II simply because the matchmaking system would connect them to players with similar skill, thus removing the need for people to play with their friends. Such a thing would be highly unnecessary and would provoke a similar reaction from paying customers.

While multiple users playing a single copy of a game is a grey area in terms of licensing, it is not strictly piracy. Games such as Spore would not have allowed players to create more than one account per game if such was the case. Piracy would be if you illegally downloaded Starcraft to play with your mum and bro, which in my personal opinion will not be stamped out if LAN is removed.

I also think you misunderstood what I said about bots. I was referring to the single player AI, which is hardly negative.

Sorry about all the text, I have a bit too much time on my hands right now so I thought I would word it out a bit =P