Blizzard must not be up to the traffic. I tried to purchase the digital download. It errored out. Tried different browsers. Same thing. Tried calling Account and Billing support. Busy signal. The one thing you absolutely do not want to fail on a popular product launch is your digital purchases. I'm going to venture to guess that this is their largest product launch ever.
Why? Has there been a shortage problem with Gamestop?
My little brother pre-ordered with Gamestop so he could get it at midnight, and there seemed to be more than enough copies for everyone when we went last night.
I actually pre-ordered my own copy from Amazon (Conveniently, it shipped from the Amazon warehouse in Nashua, NH to my house in Nashua, NH)
It feels strange to consider myself a hardcore gamer, with gaming PC, Xbox 360, PS3, etcetera, and to have never played the original Starcraft. Not a big RTS fan, I suppose, but I love most other genres. And yet here I am with a Wings of Liberty box sitting at my desk.
Read through the manual, especially the nine (!) pages they devote to the plot in teeny tiny text. For a newcomer it's extremely confusing. The Zerg make sense, but the constant shifting of Terran allegiances and Protoss character names make my head swim. IGN's five minute video summary helped, though I had to watch it three times.
I take it Kerrigan is the anti-hero everyone loves, vaguely like FFVII's Sephiroth. And there appears to be some slight debate as to whether there's any humanity left in her, though her temporary alliances appear to be more for strategic convenience than any real compassion.
What I'd like to know from my fellow HN gamers is the emotion of it. What were the shocking moments? The tearful bits? Were there any? What would I feel about Jim Raynor if I played through Starcraft and Brood War? Am I supposed to think Kerrigan as the Queen of Blades is sexy, or am I supposed to be repulsed by the... things growing out of her back?
The transition from the terran campaign to the zerg campaign in the original was the only real genius of the plot I felt. Leaving Kerrigan to die was one of the last things that happens before you start playing as the zerg. As the zerg, you have to guard this mysterious chrysalis for the first several missions without having any idea what it contains. It was a real "Oh Wow" moment when out pops zerg-Kerrigan.
The story was never the strong point of StarCraft. It's a fairly generic cowboys in space run into Aliens and Vulcans type plot.
What made StarCraft stand out was the incredible depth of its competitive multiplayer that allowed for emergent strategies to be discovered. The map editor was also brilliant and let people create incredible new variants.
$60 for this particular release - I believe this release only includes the 'Terran' missions - subsequent releases, each $60, will include the 'Zerg' and 'Protoss' specific missions.
Thats what got me...I would have purchased it but the pricing out for each set of missions and removal of LAN play has made me postpone purchase...Shoot, I'll try to wait till it comes out in a 'combo' release in a few years...I'll try!
There is actually nothing but rumors and speculation about the price of the future expansions. Blizzard has said nothing about the price, so it is a little sensationalist to assume they will all be $60.
I have been thinking for some time: is 60 US dollars sort of price limit for a game or have there been more expensive games? I'm more interested in the cases where the price of the game is determined by the merits of the game itself and not by the price of the necessary stuff (controllers, pricey distribution media etc.) that the game needs to operate, so I'd like to factor that out. But It's still interesting to know: how much did they sell for those games that need special controllers to run (i.e. guitar) or those games distributed on cartridges with pricey ROMs and ASICs?
When iPhone App Store came along, it brought with it its own price conventions i.e. it's normal to sell games for $0.99, or $9.99 tops. Does anyone sell games for $60, or at least $30 on iPhone? Form a developer's point of view I see no reason for iPhone games to be priced cheaper than PC or console counterparts. Development of any game doesn't become 10x cheaper because it is for iPhone, does it?
The reason I'm interested in it is the following: I am thinking about how can indie game developers get compensated for their work? There's the notion that if the game is "big and good" ("AAA" titles released by major publishers) it deserves to be paid top dollar for ($60 currently, I assume; though $60 seems to be "very top" by todays standards); indie games from obscure developers deserve much less. I don't see why the opposite couldn't be true; "big" games, though require big budgets for their production, will sell many copies anyway, while indie ones appeal for much narrower audience (that needs them nevertheless), for which they have to compensate with higher price, which said audience will have to pay. Does history have any examples of this kind? If not, maybe, as PG noted[1], we're not actually paying for content in games, not just in music and print?
Actually, I'd say games are getting cheaper. In the mid-80s, it wasn't uncommon to see $50-$60 dollar Nintendo games, and inflation has cut the value of a dollar approximately in half since then. Today's equivalent of SMB3 would be a $120 game.
why is an oil spill related to hacker news? or why we buy airplane tickets? or wikileaks?
hell, if anything starcraft 2 is a factor of 10 more relevant than any of those, you know, because starcraft 2 is on a computer
not only will starcraft 2 reiterate what a big deal video games are, it's going to shape popular culture, it's going to be played by millions of players each and every day for the next decade or so.
starcraft 2 is a game that values practice is thinking out of the box more than anything else, I know far more starcraft players amongst startups/hackers than settlers of catan, or anything else.
hell, nothing unites startups more than a good old lan party. (i'm aware of the irony of this point)
but most importantly, its related to Hacker News because over 30 people have said it is (upvotes)
but most importantly, its related to Hacker News because over 30 people have said it is (upvotes)
This article clearly gratifies people's intellectual curiosity. Just look at the great discussion it has generated.
Plus, I wonder how many people would have downvoted this to express disinterest. Flagging is extra work and pretty much pointless now, the only option is to ignore. There is no way to drown out a small, vocal group.
As a simple announcement, this link is light on content, but there's a lot that could be discussed if people chose to.
Take e-sports. Starcraft arguably launched e-sports and is still immensely popular, not just in Korea but around the world. The last WCG Starcraft grand final in China was apparently watched by some 10000 people who were _present_ at the match - not just watching on streams.
Even when SC2 was only in beta, tournament streams had ~5000 or more people watching live, plus countless more watching VODs later.
Can anyone see ways to monetize this? We could be on the cusp of an e-sports revolution, I'm sure there's a lot that could be done to capitalize on this. Video advertising is an obvious one, but sponsorship opportunities, premium feeds, and other possibilities abound.
Starcraft originally took off so well in Korea largely due to widely available high-speed internet access. How will the changing landscape of internet access affect it's successor?
What about emerging markets? Blizzard have launched SC2 simultaneously in 7 languages on 5 continents. They're trying out different commercialization models in markets such as South America and Russia, will these work? How will battle.net hold up, and can Blizzard succeed in driving 'hardcore' gamers towards a more connected, _social_ experience, or will people continue to complain about Facebook integration?
>starcraft 2 is a game that values practice is thinking out of the box more than anything else, I know far more starcraft players amongst startups/hackers than settlers of catan, or anything else.
I love it when people say games value thinking out of the box. Yeah! My Zerglings can beat a Yamato Cruiser right? Because they can like jump off of a cliff onto it... or something. Every game has a tiered structure of what works and doesn't SC2 is no different. At competitive levels of play there's only a handful of strategies people use, they'll work them selves out over the next month or so and then be set in stone unless people find glitches in the game that don't get patched like the original SC. SC2 is a game of rock paper scissors at the core. Every strategy game is.
>not only will starcraft 2 reiterate what a big deal video games are, it's going to shape popular culture, it's going to be played by millions of players each and every day for the next decade or so.
You know every other pop music group is listened to by millions of people some for even 3 or 4 decades! Example Led Zeppelin, so how come Led Zeppelin posts aren't on HN? SC2 is entertainment pure and simple, essentially by posting entertainment links it's going against the spirit of the rules. It's essentially cat pictures. And you know those are big on the internet which we're on, and that argument makes as much sense as your "on a computer clause".
You're right about SC2 reducing to a game of rock/paper/scissors, just like chess is a very simple game (not to mention Go). Yes, this unit counters that unit, which counters this other unit.. but there are quite a few units in the game, and adding terrain considerations and building/tech options (and the list of variables goes on) you start to get the situation where you can develop quite intricate strategies.
The classical example from Starcraft 1 is Slayers/Boxer, the Korean player who played as terran when everyone thought it was completely inferior, and developed new strategies that made him world champion.
Sure, you can snicker at it being "just a video game", but it's fundamentally no different from any other game or sport.
Rock/paper/scissors/spock/lizard seems to have the same winning strategy as the original game. Nothing interesting there, if you know how to generate random bits.
My point was that it's entertainment. I know it's a video game, but essentially it's no different from any other entertainment. I mean we don't have World Cup or Superbowl Stories on HN, why have the release of Starcraft? I'm sure there are people here who keep up with sports.
Well, personally I think Starcraft is quite an interesting topic (game aside). The whole esports scene in Korea that it's given rise to, the fact that several top ranking starcraft players have gone on to become top ranking poker players. Besides, it's interesting if only as a success story - what is it about it that sets it apart from any other computer strategy game?
I also think Blizzard is interesting from that perspective. It's quite fascinating that they have managed to, on multiple occasions, create franchises so successful that people actually can earn a living playing them, gold farming/selling characters in the case of WoW and esports in the case of starcraft and warcraft. In that sense I think they have something in common with Apple, in that there is something intangible about what they do (quality?) that makes them extremely successful.
> My point was that it's entertainment. I know it's a video game, but essentially it's no different from any other entertainment. I mean we don't have World Cup or Superbowl Stories on HN, why have the release of Starcraft? I'm sure there are people here who keep up with sports.
Sure its entertainment - entertainment created by an large group of developers/hackers/programmers; for me, thats a major delineation from other sports and entertainment.
The discussion can turn towards the high technical aptitude needed to create games (which, IMHO, is one of the areas of development pushing the bounds of computing...AI, physics, the shit-ton of math involved, balancing...etc etc.), but thats a different topic.
So? Why is the topic of entertainment a bad thing for HN?
> I know it's a video game, but essentially it's no different from any other entertainment.
The only thing I can see that it shares with other forms of entertainment is that it entertains. And if we are wondering why we post things that entertain us on HN, HN itself would probably not exist.
> I mean we don't have World Cup or Superbowl Stories on HN, why have the release of Starcraft?
If you honestly can't see a difference between the release of SC2 and the Superbowl, you're purposefully being obtuse, and if you are, your comments are hurting HN much more than a post about SC2.
However, I'll assume your just ignorant, and I'll explain the difference.
First, SC2 is a game that the users of HN have a higher chance of playing than they would have of playing in the Superbowl. Indeed, I'll go so far as to suggest that no registered user, yet, has ever played in any Superbowl.
Secondly, rather than simply be passive entertainment like the Superbowl, SC2 is a game we can actually play.
Next, their is a large following, and that following essentially evolved e-sports. People can laugh at e-sports all they want, but it's no different then watching real sports. Continuing on, the launch of SC2 today means the e-sports arena is essentially being revitalized. A sizable number of individuals are looking at how to capitalize on e-sports. Indeed, their are individuals actually making money casting esport games, or startups using esports to easily market via sponsorships of tournaments.
You see, the launch of SC2 isn't just a game. Why? Mostly because of the success of SC:BW in e-sports. So, unlike just another game being release, SC2 is different. It will present more opportunities for people to explore, and see how they can capitalize on the SC2.
In short, no. SC2 isn't just like every other game, and it is different from other entertainment. Indeed, it has more relevance on HN then your comments complaining about it's inclusion.
Are you more or less confused that the apple trackpad is sitting at number one? Actually, somewhere around a year ago, Hacker News became less "all startups, all the time" and more "news for nerds, startups featured."
A rare game that gets even those that have put their gaming years behind them back into it.
It would be hard for any other company to have the ability to spend this much time and put this much polish into a game. Given the long development time and the relatively few changes being made from the original and thus far only the one campaign. Guess that's the luxury you get from developing the cash cow that is WoW.
Duke Nukem Forever had a longer development time, but a sadder ending.
Team Fortress 2 from Valve had a similar development time and has had over a hundred patches since release, in addition to a fair amount of media developed outside of the game.
It's true that both have had significant backing bankrolls. However, you can also look to some indie 'studios'. Cave Story was a one man project that took 5 years (of spare time) to complete, and is often lauded as an indie star. Dwarf Fortress has only ever had one programmer (who is now supported by user donations), and probably deserves noting even if it doesn't quite attain any significant degree of polish.
But why? Surely you read about all the neat things the producer added to the game to make it more profitable. To monetize it in a better way?
- Tournaments only allowed if you ask Blizzard kindly
- LAN play is gone
- Integration with 3rd party social network partners
This is a good example for having a good idea, a (as far as I can tell from reviews) decent implementation but you try to overarchive on the monetizing part and ruin it for some.
I guess there's a lesson in here for startups somewhere..
I still hate how they remove LAN play from games now'a'days. My buddies and I have lan parties all the time, and its getting harder and harder to have them when lan play isn't allowed and you can't host a local server.
I hear you. But is that backed up by real evidence or is this just the naive "But Blizzard made me happy when I was young. They wouldn't possibly change for worse" feeling, mostly created by the common theme of holding ones past in favor?
It was better, back then, right? Now - was it? Or was there no way to pull off a restricted, overpriced release at that time and no way to go for the "online only" approach without broadband? Or was it impossible to create this amount of hype with TV commercials for your next big thing (tm) everywhere without having World of Warcraft to back you up?
What about "Money corrupts"? How much is WoW bringing in these days?
Before internet gameplay really took off, my friend and I used to use our parent's fax lines to connect directly and play Starcraft against each other.
Even if it's not directly Hacker News, I'm sure many readers have similar fond memories of playing Starcraft in their past.
Maybe you're not a hacker. Maybe your opinion is different from others. Maybe it doesn't really matter. Maybe you don't have to click the link and comment.
