SC2 - must be on bnet to play single player?!?

[Multi-headed Cow]

And we can't really know what that merger did.

R00fles!

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

How is that a bonus?

It was a side-story which didn't pertain to the main storyline.

 

[CrimHead]

Apologist fags itt

 

[kingcomrade]

How is that a bonus?

It was a side-story which didn't pertain to the main storyline.

You didn't answer his question.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

Apologist fags itt

If Blizzard charges 60 bucks for each expansion, I'll be pissed. If they are 30 bucks, or even 40 bucks although that's pushing it, then this was just a case where Blizzard announced their planned expansion packs before the main game was released.

 

[Konjad]

No one is forcing you to buy expansions anyway. I didn't buy Frozen Throne at release date and had plenty of players to play with anyway. I bought it about half year later and not because there were no players to be found but because I wanted MOAR. I will buy SC2 but idk about expansions. I might wait until they will become cheaper or there will be pack of two (with price of one at release date). I'm sure I won't be alone and I'll have many people to play with even without any of expansions.

 

[kingcomrade]

Info request: if you just buy one do you still get all the new units and so on in multiplayer?

 

[Raghar]

I thought a stone had a facebook integration. Also a stone has tournament features, and some stones also can be used with customizable games.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

Info request: if you just buy one do you still get all the new units and so on in multiplayer?

I don't think they've said. I'd assume it would be like most other RTS expansions: new units and maps are only available to those who purchase the expansion.

 

[Achilles]

I too fear that the two expansions will be full-price but I don't really care. I'm mostly interested in the single player and I can wait until the price drops to a point which I consider fair. Blizzard can ask 150$ for each as far as I'm concerned, I'm not going to buy them anyway until the price drops to about 15€.

Bottom line: If you object to the pricing, don't buy until the price drops to whatever you think is fair. If you're just looking for an excuse to pirate the game, just come out and say it.

 

[kingcomrade]

Normally I agree with that sentiment, that people just make up excuses to pirate, but in this case I think Blizzard is being extremely jewish about it. They know they are a big dog with a huge fan base so they are trying to milk it and that offends me.

 

[treave]

And we can't really know what that merger did. The idea for splitting SC2 might have been around since before the merger. I'm fairly sure bnet 2.0 was Activision's idea, but I can't be sure. I'd like to blame Activision for fucking up WoW, but I really think the developers just got lazy and forgot what made the game successful in the first place.

Blaming everything on Activision is only absolving Blizzard of responsibility, which is just as bad as blindly following Blizzard.

Oh no, the merged entity takes full responsibility for what it does. I'm not blaming Kotick solely, Blizzard has enough clout to not go along if they don't want to.

They implemented exclusive Starcraft WoW pets for collector's editions of Starcraft 2.

Blizzard is no longer the developer it once was.

 

[Destroid]

My main issue is that I am only getting the game to play multiplayer - there is very little chance I will even start the singleplayer, let alone finish it. It is pretty annoying that I will be heavily taxed on the expansions (which I must get to realistically continue to play online) which will only add a relatively small amount of content I am interested in.

 

[shihonage]

LAN was removed because only pirates LAN.

... and people at LAN parties and various tournaments, and deployed soldiers.

 

[treave]

There's always a chance they'll release free patches that update the base game to match later versions in multiplayer.

Probably.

LAN was removed because only pirates LAN.

... and people at LAN parties and various tournaments, and deployed soldiers.

Blizzard aren't going to support LAN because they're building Battle.net to be the ideal destination for multiplayer gaming with Starcraft 2 and other Blizzard games. Moving away from LAN play and directing players to Bnet 2.0 is the only best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with Starcraft 2 and safeguard against piracy.

And it has Facebook.

Deployed soldiers should be focusing on fighting the enemy, not Zerging their mates anyway.

 

[kingcomrade]

i zerged your mom XD

i put my roaches in all her holes

 

[chzr]

Moving away from LAN play and directing players to Bnet 2.0 is the only best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with Starcraft 2 and safeguard against piracy.

you're either a troll or a blizzard employee ;P there's no better 'quality multiplayer experience' than LAN ^^

 

[treave]

I'm neither. But to address your concerns, LAN does not provide:

1) Advanced communication options
2) Achievements
3) Stat-tracking
4) Value-added features for a low additional fee
5) Facebook integration

I'm quoting this straight from Blizzard, mind you.

 

[xrm1]

The real reason for no LAN is Garena. They're making loads of money selling avatars and shit to SE Asians who play pirated games on their platform, something Blizzard would rather do themselves.
It's basically hamachi with matchmaking, chat and microtransactions.

@Treave: Don't forget serving up ads and built in obsolescence.

 

[Destroid]

Citizens should be focused on performing productive tasks, not Zerging their mates anyway.

 

[kingcomrade]

The real reason for no LAN is $$$

 

[DraQ]

I'm neither. But to address your concerns, LAN does not provide:

1) Advanced communication options
2) Achievements
3) Stat-tracking
4) Value-added features for a low additional fee
5) Facebook integration

I'm quoting this straight from Blizzard, mind you.

Dumbfuck detected.

 

[kingcomrade]

yeah he's a furry

 

[treave]

I'm neither. But to address your concerns, LAN does not provide:

1) Advanced communication options
2) Achievements
3) Stat-tracking
4) Value-added features for a low additional fee
5) Facebook integration

I'm quoting this straight from Blizzard, mind you.

Blizzard detected.

Fixed.

 

[Hamster]

Haven't heard about charging fees. That would be dick but I don't live in eastern europe so I can't really give a fuck.

You only have to pay fees if you bought cheep eastern european version, pay full price and there will be no fees. Of course, this enraged local poorfags like skyway who think that they should receive everything 5 times cheaper.
I still think this is a good decision by Blizzard.

 

[OccupatedVoid]

Who needs LAN when you have, FACEBOOK INTEGRATION?

Treave, it appears you are a disciple of Lord Popamole and his next-gen horde. Everything you listed reeks of next-gen gimmicks aimed at the lowest common denominator. LAN is bad for Blizzard because they won't be able to advertise DLC and charge for minuscule things. BNET is not a replacement for a LOCAL Area Network.

 

[Konjad]

My main issue is that I am only getting the game to play multiplayer - there is very little chance I will even start the singleplayer, let alone finish it. It is pretty annoying that I will be heavily taxed on the expansions (which I must get to realistically continue to play online) which will only add a relatively small amount of content I am interested in.

You're both lying and dumb. There will be plenty of players in original SC2 even when both expansion will be released. As I wrote before - RoC hasn't died when FT was released - it lived many years after that with crowd and even today you won't have big issues finding players.