StarCraft II Beta To Begin This Month

mrxak writes "It's official; Activision Blizzard's much-anticipated sequel to 12-year-old StarCraft is going to enter closed beta 'this month,' according to company President Mike Morhaime during an investor conference call. This comes in the wake of the SC2 beta forums showing up briefly on Battle.net. If you've got a Battle.net account, it's probably not too late to opt-in for upcoming Blizzard beta tests."

Comments

Finally

[Cobralisk]

I was beginning to think this was Starcraft Forever

Re:Finally

[magsol]

StarCraft II: The Undiscovered Game.

Re:Finally

[wizardforce]

I think you mean Starcraft Ghost. Although when they split the game into three parts, that was what was most worrying about the whole thing looking like DNF.

Re:Finally

[FTWinston]

Looking like DNF would be it having the scope of all those three parts, but being released as a single package rather than three, tbh.

Re:Finally

[Trifthen]

Seriously. I have a battered old Game Informer from 2006 that spoke about it as if the release were impending, complete with pics of game footage.

Three years later and it's in beta!?

Re:Finally

[jhoegl]

Welcome to Blizzards PR campaign.... BRILLIANT!

Re:Finally

[Conchobair]

This is actually a good thing. Blizzard has the habit of not releasing unfinished games and even cancelling games if they start to look like they will be bad (SC:Ghost, WC:Adventures). I would much rather wait for a full and complete game without content cut out to meet a release date like EA-Bioware does (KOTOR2).

You know when this game comes out its going to be polished and will kick ass and kill several Koreans in teh process.

Re:Finally

[Chaos Incarnate]

Your comments regarding KOTOR2 (though not blame, as they didn't fail to meet their schedule!) should be addressed to LucasArts; EA and Bioware had no involvement in the game.

Re:Finally

[besalope]

This is actually a good thing. Blizzard has the habit of not releasing unfinished games and even cancelling games if they start to look like they will be bad (SC:Ghost, WC:Adventures). I would much rather wait for a full and complete game without content cut out to meet a release date like EA-Bioware does (KOTOR2). You know when this game comes out its going to be polished and will kick ass and kill several Koreans in teh process.

KOTOR2 was Obsidian not Bioware. Same with Neverwinter Nights 2, Obsidian not Bioware. Bioware still releases quality games (Dragon Age, Mass Effect 1&2), while the former Black Isle group (Obsidian) is losing their touch.

Re:Finally

[Vaphell]

ghost wasn't going to be bad imho
my bet is they developed the game for the old xbox and when the next gen consoles were about to arrive they thought that SC:Ghost won't have much appeal given crappier gfx so they scrapped it.

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

>quality games (Dragon Age, Mass Effect 1&2)
>quality games
>(Dragon Age, Mass Effect 1&2)

HA HA HA, OH WOW!

Re:Finally

[delinear]

Maybe they didn't want to risk potentially eating into WoW's market while it was growing at a fast pace, or perhaps they wanted to build in some of the tricks they learned with WoW into SCII - either way so long as we get a better game as a result I can live with a little wait.

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Lucas Arts and Obsidian

Obsidian for promising the world in a tiny dev window

Lucas Arts on insisting on an xmas release. Damn the bugs!

Re:Finally

[iamhassi]

"This is actually a good thing."

Only if you're use to the Duke Nukem Forever release schedule.

At least I know every $200 netbook should be able to run to run Starcraft II since the game was developed 2005-2006. Seriously though, 12 years is too long, especially on a game that's this amazing.

Re:Finally

[flabordec]

A very unfortunate decision, I was really looking forward to returning to the Starcraft universe and Ghost was looking like it was going to be great.

Re:Finally

[HeronBlademaster]

I would much rather wait for a full and complete game without content cut out

Right, because leaving out two of the three campaigns isn't cutting content...

Personally, I don't consider "Let's release 1/3 of the game" to be a "full and complete game".

Re:Finally

[KDR_11k]

That's only if they started developing SC2 immediately after SC1. Wouldn't that team have worked on Warcraft 3 at least?

Running on netbooks wouldn't be weird though, Blizzard knows that low system requirements are an important ingredient in their formula for success. World of Warcraft was much less demanding than other contemporary MMORPGs.

This beta should be...fun?

[N3tRunner]

The SC2 beta should be fairly enjoyable judging from the early versions of the game that we've seen in the videos that they've released already. There may be a few balancing issues, but the game looks pretty solid overall. Although, you never know how much you can trust the media released by a game developer, especially one with the technical wizardry of Blizzard.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[PitaBred]

I'm sure the game might be fun. But given that Blizzard has ripped out local LAN play (which is part of what made the original great), and made it into 3 $60 games instead of a single game with all 3 campaigns... fuck them. I am not a wallet, I am a customer. I used to be a Blizzard fan, and I may get this game eventually when it hits the bargain bins. PC games are losing ground to consoles because the fucking game manufacturers keep trying to turn the PC into a console.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Canazza]

It's a Blizzard game, ofcourse it'll be enjoyable. It's whether or not the Koreans yum it up and it becomes their new national sport that will be the true test of the game :D

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[FTWinston]

I imagine it would be difficult to make StarCraft 2 not be fun. And they certainly look to be putting in enough work that it has a reasonable chance of being more fun than the original. If for no other reason than including the (now obligatory) idle workers button :)

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[tepples]

PC games are losing ground to consoles because the fucking game manufacturers keep trying to turn the PC into a console.

Turning PCs into consoles? That won't happen easily in the RTS genre because the controls are so different.

But in other genres, let me know when multiplayer PC games designed for use with a single PC and HDTV become common, and I'll agree with you. But right now, they appear to be limited to Serious Sam, Left 4 Dead, and EA Sports.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Grandim]

Its not 3 60$ games, its one game and two expansions. Each SC2 storyline is focused on playing mostly a single race but will have more content than the original game did with all 3.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[darkvizier]

PC games are losing ground to consoles because the fucking game manufacturers keep trying to turn the PC into a console.

Turning PCs into consoles? That won't happen easily in the RTS genre because the controls are so different.

But in other genres, let me know when multiplayer PC games designed for use with a single PC and HDTV become common, and I'll agree with you. But right now, they appear to be limited to Serious Sam, Left 4 Dead, and EA Sports.

I think the GP was talking about DRM/anti-pirating measures, not the user controls. Essentially they're trying to turn computer games into the black box that console games are.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[AndrewNeo]

Since when are PC games $60? You're thinking next-gen console games.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Taibhsear]

And for these exact reasons I anticipate it topping Spore for one of the most pirated games ever.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Taibhsear]

Ok, so one $60 game and two $50 expansions. (plus DLC or some other asinine way to milk more funds out of the customer, er, consumer.)

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[jerep]

The good thing about the beta is that it will allow hackers to work on a bnet-to-lan emulator, which shouldn't really be harder than tracking packets and learning what they do.

heck if pirated servers for wow were functionnal before the actual game launched, this should be real easy to code.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[jellomizer]

When Star Craft was first released Most people had dialup Internet. LAN Parties popularity wasn't as much about people getting together Although it was a big benefit, But to Play without massive Lag... Today with most people having high speed internet Lag isn't an issue. So you can still have you "Lan" Party but you will need to connect to the Internet and back out... Really no big deal with wireless. But for the most case the need for LAN parties isn't really that big anymore.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Chaos Incarnate]

Modern Warfare 2 was $60 on PC, as will be Assassin's Creed II.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[brkello]

If you want to be taken seriously, stop exaggerating like an emo.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Bobfrankly1]

But for the most case the need for LAN parties isn't really that big anymore.

I have NEEDS you insensitive clod!

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Anonymous Coward]

Modern Warfare 2

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Svpernova09]

Today with most people having high speed internet Lag isn't an issue.

Lag isn't an issue due to customers high speed internet? You should browse the World of Warcraft customer forums. Multiple Battlegroups (groups of realms/servers) are suffering from constant lag and it has *nothing* to do with the user's internet speed. Five years after release Blizzard still suffers from lag and "unexpected downtime". After 5 years of weekly/bi weekly maintenance, how much "unexpected" can there really be? Lets hope SC2 doesn't reach the WoW popularity or if it does, lets hope Blizzard has learned a lot more about infrastructure than when WoW launched. Yes, I am a wow nerd, I'm not mad bro.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the game might be fun. But given that Blizzard has ripped out local LAN play (which is part of what made the original great), and made it into 3 $60 games instead of a single game with all 3 campaigns... fuck them. I am not a wallet, I am a customer. I used to be a Blizzard fan, and I may get this game eventually when it hits the bargain bins. PC games are losing ground to consoles because the fucking game manufacturers keep trying to turn the PC into a console.

I'm with you, but I doubt this is going to hurt Blizzard. Given all the griping on Slashdot about the most recent Modern Warfare game, but having it still sell millions and millions of copies, it's clear that people like you and I that care about this sort of thing (LAN play, price) are a minuscule portion of the market.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[dbcad7]

Some people still get together and stress out their internet connection with multiple players.. Don't underestimate the fun of seeing people cry out in agony in real life.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[PitaBred]

It's still annoying as hell that the original one let you use one copy to install multiples, and play with them all on a LAN. Now we've gotta all have our own copies. Add on top of that the "expansions" that will eventually be "required" if someone has all 3, EVERYONE has to have all 3, and you end up being nothing more than a wallet to Blizzard.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[tlhIngan]

When Star Craft was first released Most people had dialup Internet. LAN Parties popularity wasn't as much about people getting together Although it was a big benefit, But to Play without massive Lag... Today with most people having high speed internet Lag isn't an issue. So you can still have you "Lan" Party but you will need to connect to the Internet and back out... Really no big deal with wireless. But for the most case the need for LAN parties isn't really that big anymore.

Depending on the platform, it can be quite annoying. The PS3 and Xbox360 adapt to whatever router you have and figure out how best to do multiplayer (though there are several configurations where multiplayer either isn't available, or limited to those who have more "open" connections).

PC games tend not to have such luxuries for whatever reason, and still insist on people opening and forwarding particular ports (usually just 2 or so, rather than the 16 or 32 a game used to have just a decade ago). Problem is, you can't really forward a port more than once. Do it especially wrong and only one person can play per IP address (and blah blah IPv6 will solve this - not if the ISP only routes one or two IPs out of the /48 or whatver you get to you).

Do the networking right, and you can have local LAN play, but also local LAN plus WAN play (with each WAN node possibly also having a few LAN players joining in).

And LAN parties do still happen - people get together to play the Wii, and people get together to battle together because it's much more fun to yell to the person you beat when he's in the same room than over a VoIP link. Or has the notion of "friends getting together" gotten passe?

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[bluesatin]

You're seriously comparing hosting that many live-action gaming servers with some match-making servers?

The game servers are hosted by the players, not Blizzard; only the match-making server will be hosted by Blizzard.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Ihmhi]

The original Starcraft had roughly 30 missions. The three individual games are going to have 26-30 missions apiece. The multiplayer and other features (scenario editor) will be the same regardless of which of the games you purchase.

There's also no set price on the games. EB Games lists their estimated pre-order price for the first game at $49.99, but who's to say that the other games will be similarly priced? Blizzard has generally been very fair with their pricing I've found.

If they say that each of the games are going to sell for $50-60, then you have something. But for now, no price has been announced yet.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Vaphell]

wasn't modern warfare 2 90% consoles, 10% pcs? Consoles never had dedicated servers and such, console players didn't miss something they never knew
PC games _should_ be different, but i don't hold my breath given the cluelessness of an average pc gamer. LAN is oldschool for 99% and only old people in korea use it. They severely underestimate risks of being under the 'benevolent' company's absolute control and without deeper thought they give away fair use rights and ownership in a true meaning of the word in the name of convenience, social bullshit and such. They are more numerous than people who see risks of 'always connected experience' so companies can do whatever they want to grab more power, unwashed masses will pay 60 bucks for less either way (3 times).

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Mystra_x64]

If you want to be taken seriously, stop labeling those you are talking to. Thank you very much.

- Your thought police.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[wickedskaman]

That's simply not true. What about when I travel by bus or plane where there is no Internet connection but my friend and I both have our laptops? What about when I was injured and hung out in the ski lodge playing LAN games with friends who were taking a breather? What if you are on vacation in a place where Internet access is too slow or simply not accessible like a hotel room or out in the desert 4-wheeling or staying in a cabin on vacation and you want to play some LAN Starcraft II before going to sleep? There are plenty of places where you would want this feature.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[delinear]

Also the fact that they used to release add-ons and make it easier for people to write their own stuff, now they want to control and market all of that content so that they can keep charging you months after the initial game purchase - there used to be an excuse for this on the consoles (before hard drives, when additional content had to be packaged and took space on a shelf in a store, there's no excuse now).

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[brkello]

Saying someone is acting like an emo doesn't mean I am labeling them. That would be saying "You are an emo".

The game + expansions won't cost that much. The person has no idea how much they will cost, but we know they won't be that much. So they are getting angry over something non-existent.

I honestly don't care about being taken seriously anymore on here. I know my view point isn't the same as the vocal majority and I will be modded down for that. I should be more respectful, but quite frankly, I have lost pretty much all respect for the majority of people who post here. Obviously, there are still some awesome people way more smart than I am here, but they sure aren't the majority.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Omestes]

Add on top of that the "expansions" that will eventually be "required" if someone has all 3, EVERYONE has to have all 3, and you end up being nothing more than a wallet to Blizzard.

According to Blizzard; no. The first game will only contain one campaign, the human one I think, but will contain full multi-player, including all the units and races from the next two expansions. Thus, if you are only interested in multi-player you can completely ignore the two other campaigns.

I somewhat trust Blizzard on this issue for two reasons. the first is that Blizzard doesn't want to piss of the Korean Cult of Competitive Starcraft. The second is that I don't think that Blizzard has completely succumbed to Activision yet. Though I do worry about the rise of boneheaded "microtransactions", but so far they have kept them from conveying an advantage, or becoming necessary to compete.

As for the LAN issue... I really don't get the stink. How many multi-player PC games even have a LAN option for multi-player anymore? Really, how hard is it to just connect to a match making server, set up a private room, and play from there? Hell, everyone can still be in the same room. I think the whole (uh-oh, I'm gonna get a "troll" mod, oh dear!) LAN thing is nothing but a bunch of silly nostalgic niggling, the inclusion, or lack of LAN play does absolutely nothing to add to or hurt the quality of a game.

The lack of "spawn" copies does sort of piss me off though, but not nearly enough to preclude me from coughing up the cash for SCII, and allowing it to suck up a huge portion of my life. And like it.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[tepples]

Problem is, you can't really forward a port more than once.

But you can forward different ports to different hosts.

(and blah blah IPv6 will solve this - not if the ISP only routes one or two IPs out of the /48 or whatver you get to you)

In areas with more than one ISP, IPv6 ISPs that route only a /128 will lose business to those that route a whole /48. Or are you claiming that an ISP will take the extra effort to segment its network such that it routes a /48 in areas with competition and a /128 in all other areas?

And LAN parties do still happen - people get together to play the Wii

Most of the time that's not a LAN party but single-screen multiplayer, the kind that's sorely lacking on PCs, even now that most HDTVs have a PC input.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Anonymous Coward]

made it into 3 $60 games instead of a single game with all 3 campaigns

Citation Needed. They've never said anything on price of the games.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you randomly capitalizing things? I'm not a grammar nazi, but really dude, learn to communicate. It's StarCraft, not "Star Craft". You don't have to randomly capitalize words like "Most" or "Lag". Stop abusing ellipses.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[mwsw]

Why on earth do people continue to whine about releasing 3 games instead of a single game with 3 campaigns? If they sold it as one game and 2 expansions, nobody'd care. The First SC2 game will contain more missions than the original SC1 game (which included 3 campagins). You're getting just as much game for your buck.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[CorporateSuit]

Bobby Kotick, CEO of Activision, dies and goes to Hell. The devil greets him when he arrives and says "Bobby, out of all the people up there, you remind me most of myself, so I'm going to let you choose your punishment for your first thousand years."
The two start at a short hallway labelled "First Timers" and stop at the first door. Inside is an old man, screaming, having his skin peeled off in 1 inch strips. The devil explains "At the beginning of the day, his flesh is renewed. By nightfall, he is nothing but a pile of organs hanging onto a skeleton. This is the only punishment where you get a few hours rest every night." Bobby feels a bit nervous about the long future ahead of him.

The go up to the next door. Inside is an even older man, screaming louder than the first man, and he's slowly being lowered into a vat of acid. The devil explains "This punishment lasts all day. It starts at the toes and works its way up. When you are completely burned away, it starts over. Some say that after the first 800 years, though, it feels more like a massage than a punishment. I suppose it's not so bad if you really enjoyed hot tubs when you were alive." Bobby starts sweating at the thought of his eternal reward.

They come up to the third, and last door of the hallway. Inside is an EXTREMELY old man, screaming at the top of his lungs. A gorgeous young woman, chained to him by the ankle, is giving him a passionate blowjob. The devil grins "This punishment may look like fun, but after the first few hours, you get tired, but you may never rest; not for a thousand years. This punishment is one of endurance. Now that you've seen your choices, which one will it be?" Bobby Kotick doesn't take long to decide which of the punishments he'll undergo. "I'll take the last one. The blowjob one."
The devil accepts Bobby's choice with a nodded bow, and opens the third door. He enters in, unlocks the chain on the woman's leg and whispers in her ear "Your replacement is here, you've been relieved."

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Anonymous Coward]

u mad

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[brufleth]

Unlike spore I'd like it to not suck.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Nidi62]

Yeah, but with LAN parties, you can use *ahem* "borrowed" copies of the game. Basically, there is a fairly vocal minority that wants to be able to play the game without actually paying for it (this of course does not include the people who gladly pay for it and still play via LAN, and I am certainly not saying that everyone that plays LAN pirates). Of course, I'm sure I'll still get modded down for saying that (even with the disclaimer), but whatever.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Archimonde]

According to Blizzard; no. The first game will only contain one campaign, the human one I think, but will contain full multi-player, including all the units and races from the next two expansions. Thus, if you are only interested in multi-player you can completely ignore the two other campaigns.

You are unfortunately wrong there.

From http://www.starcraft2.com/faq.xml

How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?
The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.

In other words you *will* need all three expansions for multiplayer matches. Of course they won't force it, but that would be exactly like playing wow at lvl 60 when everybody is lvl 80.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Toonol]

The game + expansions won't cost that much. The person has no idea how much they will cost, but we know they won't be that much.

No, we don't. You're asserting an article of faith.

I have lost pretty much all respect for the majority of people who post here.

Hm... sounds emo.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Punto]

Turning PCs into consoles? That won't happen easily in the RTS genre because the controls are so different.

That's what we used to say about FPS games, and now everybody is playing fps with a joystick. The Wii and DS already have a mouse, and for the next generation of consoles everyone else will have some kind of pointer too. Sucks, but it'll happen eventually.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[khellendros1984]

I played some at Blizzcon this year. It *feels* like a Starcraft game. Of course, I was only playing for about 20 minutes at a time, so the long-term balance wasn't necessarily easy to gauge. And 20 minutes isn't long enough to get all the way through the tech tree either....still, I'm convinced that the gameplay videos that have been released are relatively representative of the game itself. SC2 felt smooth. I'm still ticked off about the LAN stuff though. I work right next to a Blizzard office, and I've been considering dropping a bundle of CAT5 on their doorstep, with a label "required SC2 testing equipment".

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[khellendros1984]

The main game is supposed to have a similar amount of content to the original Starcraft, and the add-ons are supposed to have a similar amount to the main game.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[drakaan]

Okay, so by that logic, either it will be impossible for 2 or more people behind the same router to play multiplayer, or all of that traffic will have to go out the router, off to Blizzard, and then back into the router (meaning that there will definitely be other non-match-making servers at blizzard involved with multiplayer game action).

I don't play multi-player on battle.net, I play via LAN with my 9-year-old son inside the same house (and have been doing so for the last 3 years or so...since he was old enough to learn to play).

You're talking apples-to-oranges here. Starcraft isn't an MMORPG, it's an RTS...the demographic tilts much more heavily to co-located opponents.

Does anyone know if the demo gameplay head-to-head stuff was played via a non-local battle.net server?

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Vaphell]

i think this is a cheap trick to 'encourage' people to get all 3 to taste anything coming close to the full experience. 1 campaign per episode? It can be epic but also extremely boring, i think average gamer's patience is about 10 missions long for the same thing over and over, you need something else to change the taste.
Old way let you see campaigns as entangled together giving an impression of depth and multiple dimensions, bringing all factions to bigass climax. Now i suspect you will get probably 10 missions of story and 20 missions of epic sidequests based on unlocking the tech and farming resources.

Is it a coincidence that nobody released rtses with ungodly long campaigns for 1 faction only and later sold next campaigns as separate episodes? Now it's appears to be the best thing since sliced bread because blizzard says so and they are never wrong.
Episodes also mean undefined amount of time to see the actual ending - vide half life 2 and it's long awaited ep3.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Toonol]

Since when are PC games $60?

Modern Warfare 2. There's at least a reasonable chance it will be the new standard (since it sold very well).

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[willy_me]

Okay, so by that logic, either it will be impossible for 2 or more people behind the same router to play multiplayer, or all of that traffic will have to go out the router, off to Blizzard, and then back into the router (meaning that there will definitely be other non-match-making servers at blizzard involved with multiplayer game action).

Skype can do this without any problems so I'm sure Blizzard can find a way to make it work. I am not sure how Skype does it but there are many ways to solve the problem.

1: Check to see if your public IP address is the same as the IP address of your opponent. If so, assume you are on the same network. Perform a broadcast on the subnet to find the private IP of your opponent.

2: Send your private IP address to the match-making server. Match-making server provides both the private and public IP addresses of your opponents. Use the private IP if your public IPs are the same.

And Skype probably uses another method altogether. The point being - it is not a difficult problem to solve.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Elshar]

I don't think you could *know* that the addon/expansions are going to be $60 each. However, you *CAN* extrapolate from other highly successful game franchises and what they've done with the DLC/Addons.

Take, for instance, Empire: Total War. It hasn't even been a year, and we've already seen 5 DLC's which add up to about $20, and they're releasing Napoleon: Total War which is set in approximately the same timeframe (18th to early 19th century Europe) for $40.

You've got Half-Life 2 with "episodes" of $20 a pop (Together they about equal the traditional expansion, so $60 there).

I could go on, there's dozens of other titles. Fallout 3, Oblivion, Morrowind, Sins, X3, etc. They all released games and then released DLC/Expansions that pretty obviously should've been incorporated into the main package, but were intentionally held out to be used as DLC (Empire:TW, Oblivion stand out here).

So, I think as gamers we're within our rights to feel jaded and distrustful of developers and publishers for trying to shove DLC/Expansions down our throats by purposefully releasing incomplete games.

Don't even get me started on DRM.. Bah.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop whining like an emo.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if you read closer on Blizzard's site:
http://www.starcraft2.com/faq.xml [starcraft2.com]

The expansions will include more multiplayer content, possibly including new units and maps. So, if you care much about multiplayer, you'll still have to buy all 3.

There are two issues with having no LAN:
1) Latency. Having to go through the battle.net servers means more lag, and this is especially important with those professional Korean players you mentioned. Games at that level are affected by even the smallest lag, and tournament games are always on LAN.
2) Unable to connect to battle.net. This could be for several reasons, from being out of range of wi-fi, internet being out for some reason, or even battle.net being blocked by a proxy server (which is very common now on college campuses). The last one is especially important, as college kids playing games with their friends are a large segment of the potential Starcraft2 player base.

The split-into-3-games part is not as big a deal for me, but no LAN is a deal breaker. I cannot connect to battle.net from my normal location, and playing with friends is the main reason I would purchase SC2. No LAN means no multiplayer for me, and thus no sale. I also have several friends that I play SC1 with, who are of the same mind. We would run out on day 1 to buy SC2, but no LAN means that we'll be sticking with SC1.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[spire3661]

And MAYBE you can get 3 people to squeeze through your DSL for no real reason at all other then corporate greed. LAN parties werent a NEED, they were and sill are a WANT.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[madhattr999]

Lots of people played the original Starcraft multiplayer without Broodwar. You always have the option for not purchasing the expansion pack. This is even more true, if you don't care about single player. If you completely ignore the aspect of single player, how is 1 game and a couple expansion packs any different than the Starcraft/Broodwar situation of 12 years ago? And if you are one of the people who cares about the campaign / single player, it's not like their cutting the campaign into thirds. Each race's campaign is just going to be 3x longer (25-30 levels instead of 10). I don't see the issue here. Nobody forced you to purchase Broodwar then, and nobody will be forcing you to purchase the expansions for Starcraft 2. Regarding your WOW comparison, lots of people played Starcraft without the extra units that came in the expansion. In WOW, there is interaction and competition between people with and without the expansion. In Starcraft 1/2, there is not. It's not a fair (or relevant) comparison.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[BikeHelmet]

When Star Craft was first released Most people had dialup Internet. LAN Parties popularity wasn't as much about people getting together Although it was a big benefit, But to Play without massive Lag... Today with most people having high speed internet Lag isn't an issue. So you can still have you "Lan" Party but you will need to connect to the Internet and back out... Really no big deal with wireless. But for the most case the need for LAN parties isn't really that big anymore.

I bet you live in the US.

I'm Canadian. I can't remember the last time I got a server under 65ms ping. Most of the time I'm playing with friends on servers with 100-140ms ping, which are hosted in the US. Meanwhile my friends are enjoying 15-25ms ping.

It's a bigger issue in a FPS, but the point still stands. Not to mention all the times battle.net goes down. It's best to never make assumptions.

All that aside... a large percentage of your own country. (25%? I don't have specifics) is still on dialup, because they're rural. Maybe they don't play games because they don't like them - or maybe it's because they can't?

Hmm... I recall that about 2 years ago, the big ADSL provider here (Telus) had about 95% uptime in my area. :P

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Archimonde]

Even though we both can't predict the future I'm certain that *much* more players will buy all three games for multiplayer. It just doesn't make much sense to pigeonhole themselves into the first game only. How many people would buy only the first game or first and second or all three of them? I think the safest bet is that to play with much more gamers one would certainly buy all three games. My comparison generally still stands with WoW. Lvl 60, 70 and 80 characters don't meet much (if at all). They all play different battlegrounds and dungeons. But we all know that there is only a handful of lvl 60 and lvl 70 gamers on a server. I bet >99% of players always play at max (80) level which is completely understandable. That is my point with with SC2.

Yes, you can try to quote Starcraft vs Brood War players, but frankly I would like to see some source of that. Even if the the ratio is much more favourable to SC, I still think that its not very relevant to compare a not released game with a very old game released when gaming industry was just a little more than in it's infancy.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Mister_Stoopid]

There may be a few balancing issues,

You misspelled "there will be major balance issues for the first 5 years after release". Blizzard will fix it eventually, but let's not pretend the balance will be anything but hilariously broken at launch.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Raptor851]

As for the LAN issue... I really don't get the stink. How many multi-player PC games even have a LAN option for multi-player anymore? Really, how hard is it to just connect to a match making server, set up a private room, and play from there? Hell, everyone can still be in the same room. I think the whole (uh-oh, I'm gonna get a "troll" mod, oh dear!) LAN thing is nothing but a bunch of silly nostalgic niggling, the inclusion, or lack of LAN play does absolutely nothing to add to or hurt the quality of a game.

Almost all of them? And yes, exclusion of LAN is a BIG deal to some of us, even if it's not to you, it kills our ability to have local tournaments...

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[LarryHappens]

Agreed, COD6 has no private servers. Made me buy it for xbox because I saw no advantage to the pc version. Anyway the only people that still play pc games generally are really hard core and most play competitively or played competitively at one point. Why water down the pc games to make them more like console games makes no sense. I guess it doesn't matter, a lan mod will be developed FAST.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell them to stop using ghetto internet. Honestly in a world with 10-100mbps internet (ok more like 10-50mbps in North America) for sub $100/mo, you can afford some internet that isn't cheap latency heck if gaming is your thing. If not, go out and get laid and stop whining.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[brkello]

No, I am using logic. Blizzard has never released games at that price and then released expansions at that price. The OP was stating it as if it was fact and then over-reacting to it. It would be considered a straw man if this were a debate.

You can call me whatever names you want. If you can't effectively counter the points I am making, then it is you who looks foolish.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[brkello]

I don't understand your post. You go on giving excellent examples how no one charges $60 for expansions and then you complain about it. My point was the OP was flipping out about it costing $180 when there was nothing to justify that opinion. Your post further validates mine. Yet you seem to disagree with me.

I am currently playing Fallout 3. I am almost done with the main story and have yet to touch the DLC. I waited for the GOTY edition (what smart gamers do with their money). That game is worth $60 easily without touching the DLC. So I disagree that any of the DLC obviously should have been incorporated. There is a whole game there without the DLC.

Everyone is within their rights to feel however they want. That doesn't prove anything. If you don't like what a company does, don't buy the game. If you want the game, but think there will be DLC, wait a year and get it when all the DLC is included. Simple.

You don't need to get started on DRM. In every game article there will be about 1-6 posts (depending on popularity of the game) talking about how people hate DRM. There will be 1-4 talking about how piracy is the superior version (ignoring the fact that it is probably full of trojans). There will be a couple funny posts. And maybe one moderated post actually talking about the game and what they like about it.

Just try it out, before you click on the comments, predict all the stuff people are going to whine about instead of actually talk about the article. You'll get pretty tired of hearing the same groupthink spat out constantly.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[cthulu_mt]

By all reports the first campaign "Wings of Liberty" will have as much or more content than the original stand alone Starcraft. If they are providing 3 times the content I don't have any issues paying 3 times the cost.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[CAIMLAS]

Did you actually play back then?

I had cable internet access back then: our town was one of the first 'test sites' for what is now the regional home provider giant.

I barely ever even played Starcraft except for at LAN parties. Why? Because it wasn't half as much fun. It was much more fun to sit next to friends, drink soda (and later, beer) and occasionally hit each other. Yelling at someone at "spit in the eye" range is also much more fun than doing it over Teamspeak or some such thing.

Sure, today, it's possible you could run a LAN party off of a high-speed Internet connection. However, most of the LAN parties I've been to wouldn't work like this, easily: at 15-30kbps up, you're not given much room for a modern, diverse multiplayer game with a handful people on the network. Also, we've usually been kicked out to the garage or basement - locations which (usually) do not have uplink without running lengthy cables (or using wireless). I suppose it would work, but it certainly complicates things.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[cbhacking]

Aside from there being two expansions rather than just one (and a 12-year wait for the next title in the franchise), how is this different from the original SC?

StarCraft shipped with a fairly small set of maps, about 30 campaign missions, and full multiplayer. Brood War added new units, maps, and roughly 30 more campaign missions, and if you wanted to use the new units or new map tilesets you had to play with other people who had Brood War too. These days, nobody plays SC without Brood War, and while you can still buy them together you can't get them separately.

SC2 will ship with an unknown number of maps, about 30 campaign missions, and full multiplayer. Each of the two expansions will add new units, maps, and roughly 30 more campaign missions each, but if you want to use the new stuff in multiplayer you'll need everybody in the game to have the expansions. Really, this is *exactly* the same pattern as before. What are you so upset about?

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Calinous]

Blizzard never released "pay to play" games... until World of Warcraft.

      There is a start for everything.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Anonymous Coward]

The game + expansions won't cost that much. The person has no idea how much they will cost, but we know they won't be that much. So they are getting angry over something non-existent.

I am interested as to where you are getting your information. Also, you appear to contradict yourself within the quoted lines.
1) They don't know how much it will cost.
2) Everyone knows that it won't cost that amount.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[KDR_11k]

X3? Wasn't the only paid expansion for that Terran Conflict which came several years after the main game? To my knowledge there was a gigantic pool of free content released for that game (they advertise it on the version 2.0 retail boxes).

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[KDR_11k]

Even more so because Activision owns Blizzard and was to blame for the price of MW2. They know that SC2 will sell a lot so they'll price it at 60, probably with some assholeish remarks from Bobby Kotick to go along with it.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[KDR_11k]

I don't know about your home connection but mine does only ~30kB/sec upload. That can easily become a bottleneck, never mind the unnecessary latency that adds.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[PitaBred]

It was explicitly allowed in the original StarCraft to spawn copies like that. The spawned copies couldn't play the single-player game or on Battle.net, but you could still play on the LAN.

Stop being a troll. It's advertising, not "borrowing". Getting your friends to play and want this awesome game so they can play online with you as well as on the LAN.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[drakaan]

Okay, but if the idea is "no LAN play", then data won't stay local. It *will* go through a blizzard server. Combine Blizzard's public statement about lack of LAN play with technical requirements for avoiding it, and you're left with servers in the middle that are not match-making servers.

I'm not saying it's a difficult problem to solve (as long as you have an internet connection). I'm saying that both for multi-site and single-location multiplayer, there will need to be a non-local server involved during gameplay. Either that, or there's no point in disabling LAN play.

Re:This beta should be...fun?

[Anonymous Coward]

and you end up being nothing more than a wallet to Blizzard.

You make it sound like Blizzard is like the Government.

I think you'll get a lot more out of Blizzards product, however./p

Who cares?

[AdmiralXyz]

This is Slashdot. We should be griping about the DRM, or the removal of LAN play which is obviously intended to keep us as indentured servants to the corporate behemoth, not talking about trivial things like when the game is going to be released.

Re:Who cares?

[darkvizier]

This is Slashdot. We should be griping about the DRM, or the removal of LAN play which is obviously intended to keep us as indentured servants to the corporate behemoth, not talking about trivial things like when the game is going to be released.

Fuck yeah! That's the spirit. Bring back the /. I know!

Re:Who cares?

[L4t3r4lu5]

I'll sign up to the beta, play for 10 minutes, say "Where's the rest of the game? Where's the LAN play? What the hell is this DRM crap?" and not come back until it's sorted.

Re:Who cares?

[brkello]

You obviously didn't read the other Blizzard article. That's all you are about. Complaining about stuff. Slashdot is the Tea Party movement of the Internet. A bunch of old people complaining about how things used to be with complete disregard to reality.

Re:Who cares?

[neoform]

You forgot the part about them taking one game and splitting it into 3 games so they can charge me 3x more..

Re:Who cares?

[rk]

Reality has nothing whatsoever to do with it. I know that Blizzard doesn't give a damn if me and a few "old people complaining" don't buy their product because they've got millions of young people out there conveniently pre-programmed to shell out their money for whatever they care to spew out, whether it tastes like ambrosia or crap.

I still play Starcraft in LAN mode 3 to 4 times a week with my wife and/or son. If SC2 just authorizes to battle.net then falls back to LAN play, I'm fine with that. If SC2 makes me route packets for the game to San Jose or Los Angeles or wherever to play with someone whose computer is 30 centimeters from mine, it's a non-starter. The internet is still not as reliable as my home LAN (100% uptime!)

I'm not trying to punish Blizzard by not buying it. But I don't spend money on things I don't want or need, and RTS games that don't allow me to play games with the people I love without having their server in the sky's approval is among them. And no, we don't pirate games. In fact I probably own twice as many SC licenses as I actually need for the number of full copies that run here.

Re:Who cares?

[Vaphell]

sad thing is that in both cases (games and politics/economy) being cool, hip and 'progressive' will end in the same way - with a total disaster.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yuk fu!! He was trying to be funny. The tea party movement and slashdot have about as much in common as apples and oranges. I don't agree with everything they're on about, but at least they don't just bend over and take it like the majority of Amerikans. BTW how's BO working out for ya, seems to me so far he stinks.

Re:Who cares?

[brkello]

That's fine. But here is my point. You have no clue how it will be implemented. It may just require you to authenticate and then all traffic will be routed locally. My Internet is out maybe 1 or 2 times a year and usually is just a router restart. If this is a big deal, then you can't buy any multi-player game.

But instead of ANYONE here waiting to see how anything is done, they complain and already get their excuses in line to pirate the game.

No one here is talking about how it is cool you can just enter in a key to the new battle.net for your games and can download them - Mac or PC. No one is talking about how excited they are to finally get the next part of the story. You guys all are crying about LAN play and being online.

There has to be others out there that are just excited to play the game. I already know all your ideologies. It is hammered in almost every single post in every single article. You hate DRM. I got it. Don't buy any game because they will all have DRM. This is reality. All consoles are a form of DRM. This is a reality. These games will all sell despite your ideologies.

No one on here can just be excited for a game release? Nope, too much to ask. You all have the childish mentality that it is cool to bash everything.

Honestly, I don't care about your heart-breaking story of being unable to play with people you love. You know why? Because it is all made up. The game isn't out, you have no idea if what you are saying is true, but instead of just de-clenching you have already gone in to outrage mode.

I have been in this community for so many years. I loved Slashdot. But I think I have just outgrown it. You guys can't talk about an article. You can only karma whore by repeating the same ideology over and over again. I honestly challenge everyone here to just look at the comments modded up in every article. Pretty much every post modded up should be redundant. It has nothing to do with the article, and everything to do with "OMG DRM. OMG LAN. OMG BNETD." Yes, we all know all those things already. You will get modded up but you have contributed nothing.

And really, this isn't you...I am sure you are a nice person. I am just tired of the ideology, it doesn't have to be this way. Everything is spun Libertarian here and exaggerated so that it becomes worthless.

The frustrating thing is I know there are a lot of Slashdotters out there just like me. It is just we are the vocal minority. I feel like Slashdot has been stolen away by people who care more about shoving views down my throat than by technology.

Re:Who cares?

[brkello]

I didn't know Bush was cool, hip, and progressive. Congratulations, most ignorant post I have read in weeks.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

I present to you a list of games, with the feature of "network play" advertised on the box, that are now no longer capable of living up to their advertised duty as a product because the powers that be decided they needed to control all online play of their games, and then later decided that maintaining the systems for online play are no longer necessary.

http://www.ea.com/2/service-updates
http://gamerscoreblog.com/press/archive/2010/02/05/gh789.aspx

There are two reasons Blizzard (Activision) doesn't want LAN. So no one can run a tournament for their game without their express permission & control of it, have you seen how insane the Korean's go over Starcraft one, it's like the fucking superbowl for them everyday, this gaming community would not have been able to thrive in an environment where LAN play was excised. Second they've grown used to the MMO idea that everyone should be connected just to validate their copy (that pos DRM).

How many years into the future will Starcraft II be rendered obsolete as a networking playable game because Battle.Net was upgraded and SC2 support was left out?

Re:Who cares?

[theantipop]

Then don't sign up for the beta.

Re:Who cares?

[rk]

My problem is with omnipresent DRM. I play Sins of a Solar Empire, and that's RTS DRM done right. I can't get updates without using Impulse (their decent-but-not-as-good-as-Steam app), but other than that, it doesn't phone home for single-player, or LAN play (which it has).

I praised Blizzard's new battle.net. It was very Steam-like to me (also DRM done right, IMO). LAN play may not be important to you. That's fine. But it's critical to me. You care more about the story. Great! Glad you like it. To me, it's a good, but by no means great, space opera*. For 50 bucks, I can likely buy 6 books that have a story I would prefer more.

I'm not a zealot about any of this, but I do want what I want, and you're right, I don't know what form it will actually take. But, I have to take a wait-and-see attitude to it before I commit my money (and three Starcraft fans in the house means $150 for me, not just $50, so the risks are higher, please keep in mind) to it. If there were not this question, it would've been pre-ordered already if anyone reputable is taking pre-orders. As it stands, I have to wait until I hear back from others who are willing to take the risk before I can take the plunge. And that, more than anything, really irks me, because I do want to play it, and I want to be excited, but I want to play it my way. I don't think that's asking too much. I'm not in "outrage" mode. I'm more into "cynical skeptic" mode. I don't get outraged much anymore.

As to karma, I honestly do not give a good golly damn about it. And spun libertarian? He's about as anti-libertarian as they come. ;-)

Re:Who cares?

[rk]

Replying to my self like an idiot, but I forgot my footnote:

*- This may be perceived as I have something against space opera. If you saw my bookshelves you'd know that's pretty far from the truth. :-)

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was very Steam-like to me (also DRM done right, IMO)

If you're into that must phone home to install or play. Also if you're into the whole we can revoke access at any time for no reason thing.

Re:Who cares?

[IKnwThePiecesFt]

And the world will not care.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

what does that make someone who complains about complaining? LoL

Re:Who cares?

[Vaphell]

so progressive is someone that is liked by the teenage highschool hippies on a basis of a nice appearance? actions tell more than worthless words.

Reckless monetary policy, running huge deficits, fiscal irresponsibility and bailouts for the buddies don't sound like true conservative and that's what Bush did.
From the pure actions perspective he is merely a less spectacular copy of Obama. Obama does pretty much the same stuff that Bush did, but on a grander scale. Besides Obama was elected because he talked a lot about change - where is that change?
At the moment there is:
more wars? check
huge, unheard of deficit? check
bailouts for the selected few? check
the same monetary policy that will eventually destroy the dollar? check

there are only 3 meaningful differences between these two:
dem label vs rep label,
black vs white,
charismatic speaker vs redneck

Re:Who cares?

[Vaphell]

and one more thing - at least in these 2 terms of bush the US had the illusion of prosperity
if you think it ended badly, just wait till you see the effects of Obama's term.

Socialism and blowing money left and right (which is what the current administration does) won't solve any problems, I promise you that.

Re:Who cares?

[G00F]

I think you are missing the point of people voting with their wallets here.

I'm part of the aging gamers, I don't really play online anymore, I play LAN with my friends. So quite simply, if the game doesn't have LAN, it doesn't interest me much. LAN is not obsolete, just some game companies are replace it for a more controlled and income friendly methods.

Single player, eh, 10 hrs of play time isn't worth the time it takes to go to a store and shell out 60 bucks. I can wait till it reaches $35 for both it and the expand. There are plenty of things to keep dads occupied besides the latest and greatest rehashed games.

However, being older and no longer trying to be on the IN crowed, I will do things out of principle.(vote with my wallet) If I want it to have LAN, and it doesn't, screw it, my money goes elswhere (such as an indie game, or taking my kids to the zoo)

While you may not like people saying boycot blizzard, well, this is how the free market should work.

Re:Who cares?

[brkello]

You are a moron. Try getting your news from more than one place. The Internet is socialism. So you may not want to post here. Public schools are socialism. Don't let your kids go to school there. Police and fireman...do you hate them? Socialist bastards all of them. Your points don't even make sense. What more wars are you talking about? We are ramping down in Iraq and trying to finish Afghanistan. Obama is trying to get health care through, but people that are stupid like you won't let everyone save money because you are afraid of socialist health insurance. He made in to law that women get equal pay. He is trying to get rid of don't ask don't tell. Our relationship with foreign countries is a million times better. He stopped us from going in to a depression. I am worried about run away inflation, but the reason we are at this point is because of conservative policy of removing regulation. Go read and listen to other things. You seriously have no idea what you are talking about. You just spout off Tea Party talking points. You sound like Sarah Palin to me.

Re:Who cares?

[brkello]

Yeah, like I said, it wasn't really him. I am just tired of the ideology. And he might not be Libertarian (I didn't actually click your link, sorry), but he still espouses some of their ideology. I think sometimes you get tired of reading all the negativity modded up. I want more optimism. Kind of why I think reddit appeals a bit more to me these days.

Re:Who cares?

[brkello]

You are comparing EA to Blizzard. That would work on someone who lacks the ability to go back and look at this history of the companies and understand their track records. Unfortunately for you, I can so your point is...pointless.

Re:Who cares?

[brkello]

I'd like to think it makes me someone with enough balls to speak logic in the face of an overwhelming horde of people who circle-jerk their ideology at me. But I am giving myself a little too much credit, I think.

Obligatory release date question

[DoofusOfDeath]

I know how these questions usually play out, but I'm asking just in case someone with a clue cares to comment.

Do we have any idea of the time frame in which to expect the first installment of SC2 to be released?

Re:Obligatory release date question

[gmthor]

This is Blizzard....
It's done when it's done. If the balance appears to suck during the beta, then we might even wait another year.

Re:Obligatory release date question

[gottebag]

soon

Ambiguity

[logback]

The 6th grader in me is excited after watching the "battle reports", and me now says "why should I even care?". I feel I've been betrayed by Blizzard spending all their efforts on the mediocre title that is WoW. This should of happened 8 years ago Blizzard! gg assholes

Re:Ambiguity

[Anonymous Coward]

Different development teams are working on WoW and SC2. Not working on WoW would not make SC2 come any faster. The existence of WoW means that SC2's team gets all the money they need and aren't pressured to rush the game out the door. gg moron.

Re:Ambiguity

[dosilegecko]

I totally feel the same way. I used to be a huge Blizzard fan. Warcraft 1, 2, 3, Starcraft, Diablo 1, 2. I bought every one of those titles and played them to death (including expansions, especially brood wars). Hell, I relapse into Warcraft 3 once in a while. Along comes the abomination WoW, which completely ruins my trust and adoration for Blizzard. Its the only game they have published in the past 5 years, and it is the worst. I have no idea how people can play it for more than 10 minutes. Blizzard is basically dead to me. Just because the cash cow WoW made them tons of money, doesn't mean that your old fans will stick around after the nonsense. R.I.P. Blizzard, 2004.

Re:Ambiguity

[Aurisor]

This was truly a difficult decision for me: should I spend mod points to flag your post as a troll, which it clearly is, or should I allow the grammar nazi in me to tell you that the word you wanted was "ambivalence," not ambiguity?

Well, if you're reading this, you know which side prevailed.

Re:Ambiguity

[logback]

fair enough I just hate WoW

Re:Ambiguity

[logback]

Thanks for the grammar tip, I'll keep that for future reference, and I appreciate your insight on my opinions.

A disturbance in the force...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the feeling of millions of South Koreans all creaming their jeans.

Failure of imagination

[tepples]

I imagine it would be difficult to make StarCraft 2 not be fun.

It wouldn't be too difficult to make StarCraft 2 not fun: just add digital restrictions management.

1. Require an Internet connection for single-player. This excludes players who game on a laptop with a laptop mouse and can't afford either A. 3.99 USD every time they want an hour of Wi-Fi or B. 1,439.76 USD plus tax for 24 months of mobile Internet access.
2. Require a broadband connection for multiplayer even when all players are on the same subnet. This excludes players who live outside major cities and have to use dial-up, satellite, 2G mobile, or low-end DSL, even if they share the connection so that all players can see Battle.net.
3. Require each player to buy a copy of the game. The first StarCraft had spawn installations, and a $50 game quickly becomes a $200 game when mom and dad have to buy a copy for each PC.

Re:Failure of imagination

[FTWinston]

I agree that those things all suck, but: 1. I would be suprised if they don't cave in and allow offline single player eventually (its the MP they want to control, after all). This doesn't affect me personally, so doesn't make the game less fun for me.

2. If they end up allowing local LAN games to connect directly over the LAN after initial battlenet authentication, then this problem is mitigated substantially - a sub-par connection would suffice for this. If they don't, then that sucks, but this will rarely affect me personally, so doesn't make the game much less fun for me.

3. How many games these days (excluding indies) allow spawning? Also given that WC3 didn't, I suspect that anyone expecting SC2 to allow spawning was setting up unreasonable expectations. Also, Brood War didn't allow spawning, and I suspect almost no one plays starcraft without Brood War these days (or in the last several years), except perhaps ultra-casually.

Besides, no DRM will last forever with enough people with a vested interest in breaking it. There'll be a SC2 equivalent of hamachi SC1 before too long (complete with fake battlenet authentication server), in all probability.

Re:Failure of imagination

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a major PC games player, but when I do buy a game the first thing I do is check out gamecopyworld to get a crack to remove restrictions such as these and make the game usable.

Re:Failure of imagination

[c.r.o.c.o]

I'll probably get modded down for writing this, but I'm more than certain that a short time after SC2 gets released there will be a pirated version that will circumvent all three of your points. When will companies learn that the only people affected by DRM are their paying customers and NOT those running pirated copies?

Re:Failure of imagination

[ifrag]

Also, Brood War didn't allow spawning, and I suspect almost no one plays starcraft without Brood War these days (or in the last several years), except perhaps ultra-casually.

Brood War also didn't use a CD-Key, so if you had the means to emulate the disc the expansion was playable on battle.net.

Of course now this is a complete non-issue because Blizzard now offers a complete Starcraft with BroodWar installer from battle.net "2.0" (is that what it is?) after the user attaches their Starcraft CD key to the new account. The games also no longer require the disc to be in the drive assuming the correct MPQ's are copied over as well. So basically now an original Starcraft key is all that is required.

Re:Failure of imagination

[FTWinston]

Brood War also didn't use a CD-Key, so if you had the means to emulate the disc the expansion was playable on battle.net.

But not at the same time as someone else using the same serial.

Of course now this is a complete non-issue because Blizzard now offers a complete Starcraft with BroodWar installer ... So basically now an original Starcraft key is all that is required.

The whole point of spawn copies was that you could play on battle.net at the same time as the person whose game you had spawned. Of course, you could only play in games created by them, but going by tepples's example, a family could all play original starcraft against each other either online or offline using a single CD key. They cannot do the same (online) using brood war, as you can't spawn that, and nor does it look like they'll be able to do the same with SC2.

Re:Failure of imagination

[d34dluk3]

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

Re:Failure of imagination

[cbhacking]

WHile it's true that WC3 technically didin't have a spawn installation option, it really wasn't needed for local games. Even on the release version (years before the official No-CD patch), the game installed all its data files to the hard disk. The only time it checked for the CD was when you started the game, after which you could remove the CD and play all you wanted, even single-player. This emant that within one household, you only really needed on WC3 (and Frozen Throne) CD if you wanted to play on a LAN. Of course, you couldn't go on Battle.Net together (shared CD key) but it was fine for local games.

With the advent of the official no-CD patch, you didn't even need to do the whole load CD / start game / eject CD / hand to next person / repeat cycle anymore.

Re:Failure of imagination

[Vaphell]

cracked single player will be available from day 1, or even earlier - nobody in his right mind would dispute that.

reportedly there will be an option to play single player without logging in, but your achievements and such worthless bullshit won't be saved (it's kept online). Installation process will require battle.net though, which is stupid beyond recognition. How hard is to scrap the offending code? 1hr of hacker's effort?

Re:Failure of imagination

[Moheeheeko]

Honestly, dont blame Blizz on that one, blame the dipshits who have "aquired" all their games under the table for the past 4 years.

Re:Failure of imagination

[brkello]

Why in the heck do you think you would be modded down? That same thing is said in every single game article and it is modded up.

Re:Failure of imagination

[snowraver1]

You didn't even need that. Once that game was loaded you could remove the CD. All you had to do was a round-robin game start and pass the disc around.

Re:Failure of imagination

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't call those shitheads in the "warez scene" hackers. You are insulting people who actually build things instead of destroying other people's work.

Re:Failure of imagination

[Rayonic]

Require each player to buy a copy of the game. The first StarCraft had spawn installations, and a $50 game quickly becomes a $200 game when mom and dad have to buy a copy for each PC.

And heck, you have to buy extra computers for your friends to play on, so that's even more money! Screw you Blizzard!

Reminds me of this comic: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2003/8/25/

Re:Failure of imagination

[Bragador]

You are insulting people who actually build things instead of destroying other people's work.

Sometimes it's fun to destroy things in order to learn how they work.

Re:Failure of imagination

[Vaphell]

these shitheads also allow legitimate owners to run their games because securom or some other drm crap refuses to cooperate.

Read about UBISOFT using CRACK from RELOADED as their own patch to fix drm problems with RainbowSix: Vegas
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ubisoft-Cracks-Own-Game-with-Reloaded-Fix-90318.shtml

or hear that rant of a devoted gamer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt4BpnfAN-o

Re:Failure of imagination

[Anonymous Coward]

forgot these other must-have DRM features:
- still require DVD in computer's drive, even though software is constantly calling home to verify it's CD key and also runs 1-4 "services" programs to always verify it is a valid copy
- above, and have a laptop without a DVD drive (I hear some Macs come that way with no internal option)

Re:Failure of imagination

[rtbyte]

Actually I killed the last 'boss' in Mass Effect 2 6 days before the official US release... And they do add DRM not for the pirates but for the paying customers so they can't give the game to their friends. And those friends have to buy it themselves - at least that the sick idea in game the industries controlling body heads I guess. The thing they ignore is that at least I myself would have bough lot more games if there were no DRM, and now after i hear about all the problems with the game protections I don't even consider buying it. I just go and find the pirated version with the MAIN idea that I'll have LESS problems with it ...

DIABLO!?!?!?!

[alta]

Yeah, I enjoyed starcraft. It was fun, yes... I could kick my coworkers asses. Blah Blah...

But I preferred diablo. So where's Diablo 3? Wasn't it announced first? Wasn't it started first? Anyone got sales numbers on their games? I guess they expect to make more $$ out of Starcraft, but I can't wait for D3.

Re:DIABLO!?!?!?!

[alta]

Found my own answer, if vgchartz.com is correct.

Starcraft 1 sales 12million.
Diablo2 sales 5million.

Guess I'm just going to have to wait.

Re:DIABLO!?!?!?!

[BoredAtWorkWhatElse]

But I preferred diablo. So where's Diablo 3? Wasn't it announced first? Wasn't it started first?.

Nope, Starcraft 2 was announced in 2007 and Diablo 3 in 2008.

Re:DIABLO!?!?!?!

[Bobfrankly1]

Found my own answer, if vgchartz.com is correct.

Starcraft 1 sales 12million. Diablo2 sales 5million.

Guess I'm just going to have to wait.

That, and they're still negotiating a new contract with the Devil.

Re:DIABLO!?!?!?!

[Vaphell]

2011 is being optimistic imho, they still haven't announced 5th class (barbarian, wizard, witch doctor, monk, ...? )
given that sc2 was in a beta ready state 1 year ago (but they fucked up with battle.net and had to wait) i wouldn't count on d3 being released soon. As you see they have all the time in the world. Corporations are forever, you are not :)

if you want to see how things look and work, goto official website and youtube for gameplay clips from blizzcons and gaming expos.

Re:DIABLO!?!?!?!

[TJamieson]

Maybe you would enjoy Torchlight? It's made by a bunch of former Blizzard folks, and is a very good Diablo clone. It doesn't have the same dark feel; it's slightly more cartoony, but still good. Definitely a good stop-gap until Diablo3.

Re:DIABLO!?!?!?!

[jo_ham]

They are on record somewhere on the D3 forums (or at Blizzcon) stating that D3 would not be released until after SC2 had shipped.

Re:DIABLO!?!?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Starcraft 2 was officially announced in 2007.
Diablo 3 was officially announced in 2008.

Re:DIABLO!?!?!?!

[spire3661]

Torchlight (click) looked fun(click) until i realized (click) id have to (click) through the entire (click) game.

PS3 and 360 are current-gen

[tepples]

Since when are PC games $60?

Since $ also meant other currencies than the United States dollar. Or since it cost $60 to buy three copies of a $20 bargain game, one for each player.

You're thinking next-gen console games.

Xbox 360 and PLAYSTATION 3 are the current generation.

Re:PS3 and 360 are current-gen

[brkello]

*rolls eyes* Come on. You know what he meant. We obviously don't know the prices of next gen games. we both know, he is referring to the 360 and the PS3. There's no reason to be such a pedant all the time.

Re:PS3 and 360 are current-gen

[Anonymous Coward]

You're thinking next-gen console games.

Xbox 360 and PLAYSTATION 3 are the current generation.

Don't be so sure. I can easily find plenty of articles online that clearly say that the PS2/Xbox/GameCube are 'next-gen consoles'. This naturally makes the PS3 and 360 'future-gen' or 'post-gen consoles'.

SC2 = Star Control II

[Jon Abbott]

As much as I enjoyed StarCraft, the acronym "SC2" will always be reserved for Star Control II in my mind.

Re:SC2 = Star Control II

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I'm a little too young to remember SC2, but I see from the wikipedia page that it's GPL. Awesome.

Re:SC2 = Star Control II

[Anonymous Coward]

A more recent SC2 is Supreme Commander 2

Re:SC2 = Star Control II

[ifrag]

Well, how about changing it to UQM for Star Control 2 (The Ur-Quan Masters). Isn't that what the open source port uses?

It's really too bad there has not been any real successor to Star Control 2 though, great game, and the dialogue is absolutely hilarious. I still use quotes from that game.

Re:SC2 = Star Control II

[space_jake]

SupCom 2

Re:SC2 = Star Control II

[Anonymous Coward]

abandonia.com/org i think you can dl it there. It is awesome.

Re:SC2 = Star Control II

[Turidoth]

Try SimCity 2000

Re:SC2 = Star Control II

[EventHorizon_pc]

Agreed. I see yuubuu also warship that game. *Sad* *lonely* *bubbles* that don't agree that it is a great game make *happy campers* *frumple*. How can you not like a game with "rat-babes galore?"

So, who do you think would win in a battle between an army of dnyarri and an army of hypnotoads? Or are they the same creature?

too late?

[northernfrights]

"If you've got a Battle.net account, it's probably not too late to opt-in for upcoming Blizzard beta tests." Well, ok... NOW it probably is...

LAN Play

[MrTripps]

Actually they will have LAN play... ...but it runs on IPX.

Spawn installation

[tepples]

If they end up allowing local LAN games to connect directly over the LAN after initial battlenet authentication, then this problem is mitigated substantially

I seem to remember the last Slashdot story about SC2 mentioning that the new game would allow dedicated servers, possibly even servers run by Blizzard. I tried to click through for details, but it appears the site is down at the moment. If play on a dedicated server is optional, or if the computer running Internet Connection Sharing is also running the dedicated server, then fine.

How many games these days (excluding indies) allow spawning?

There are two ways to have multiple players on one copy of the game: split-screen and spawning. Split-screen obviously doesn't apply to modern RTS games. As for spawning, three out of the four games I still have for Nintendo DS allow it: Meteos, Mario Kart DS, and Tetris DS. True, Meteos and Mario Kart have reduced functionality when not all players have a Game Card, but it's still a good way to introduce new players and to get cost-conscious moms to buy a copy of an E, E10+, or T game.

Remember bnetd?

[tepples]

it will allow hackers to work on a bnet-to-lan emulator, which shouldn't really be harder than tracking packets and learning what they do.

If "learning what they do" involves any sort of encryption, look for another lawsuit like Blizzard v. Jung.

Looking Forward More to the Other SC2

[Maltheus]

Although I'm dreading the "simplification" of the economy, I'm much more looking forward to Supreme Commander 2. The AI might have sucked in the first one, but the strategic zoom and infinite queuing of tasks has added more to the genre IMO, than anything the original starcraft ever did. Not to mention the scope.

Still, as an RTS junkie, I'll be interested in seeing what the new Starcraft will offer. Hopefully they don't continue the unfortunate RTS trend of focusing more on offense, to the exclusive of defense and the intricacies of building up an economy.

Oh who am I kidding? I hope they both suck. I need them to suck. RTSes are as bad as any drug out there. Maybe worse. At least you can do other things while high on drugs. You can't do anything else while wasting your time on an RTS. Except perhaps, drugs....hmmm.

Re:Looking Forward More to the Other SC2

[renrutal]

Oh god, a dozen years later, the conflict between Total Annihilation and StarCraft will be reborn.

Hell yeah!

Re:Looking Forward More to the Other SC2

[mqduck]

Hopefully they don't continue the unfortunate RTS trend of focusing more on offense, to the exclusive of defense and the intricacies of building up an economy.

My problem is that I enjoy base-building and defense too much. I lost many a Starcraft game because I never got around to attacking, and the game is designed so that no base is impenetrable. One of the things I love about Civilization IV is that peace and diplomacy is a perfectly viable and enjoyable strategy. It fits me like a glove.

Re:Looking Forward More to the Other SC2

[arc_orion]

It fits me like a glove.

You freakish hand-person!

What kind of wireless?

[tepples]

When Star Craft was first released Most people had dialup Internet.

When the first StarCraft was released, PC gamers used desktop PCs. Laptops are more common now than they were then, and web browsing over EDGE can feel almost as slow as over dial-up. Besides, even for desktop PCs, high-speed cable and DSL coverage hasn't yet reached everywhere; the 0.25 Mbps DSL available where my mother lives is fairly slow.

Really no big deal with wireless.

Did you mean "wireless" as in 802.11-series WLAN with a cable or DSL uplink, or "wireless" as in EDGE, HSPA, or EVDO?

Now to go Mac...

[Anonymous Coward]

Starcraft II is coming for Mac. Now I can switch to Mac and never go back.

Re:Now to go Mac...

[Anonymous Coward]

What are the chances of Mac users being selected to participate in the Beta?

Abbreviations change

[tepples]

Do you complain about your fond memories of these too?

• IBM Personal System/2 or Phantasy Star II (not PlayStation 2)
• Program Segment Prefix or Paint Shop Pro (not PlayStation Portable)
• Shining Force II (not Street Fighter II)
• New Super Mario Bros. (not the Nigga Stole My Bike cutscene in Punch-Out!!)

Re:Abbreviations change

[Jon Abbott]

No complaints there, although it will always be "Mike Tyson's Punch Out!!" to me, even if he did bite someone's ear off. :^)

StarCrack

[Anonymous Coward]

I look forward to getting my StarCrack fix again....

Re:Bargain bins?

[Backward Z]

Bargain bins? For Blizzard games? Oh no-no-no-no-no, this does not happen.

Last year I wanted to pick up a copy of Warcraft III so I could play DotA with a friend of mine. The battle chest, mind you SEVEN YEARS after the game was initially released, was still $40. Amazon still lists it as $39.99 (-$5 discount).

Blizzard does not end up in the bargain bin.

People don't seem to understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

That this is a new game. It's not the first Starcraft. No one is taking away your right to still have a Starcraft LAN party or to install spawns. This is a completely new experience for a new generation of computing and networking. Blizzard is making it and they have all the right in the world to control how we experience it. STFU already about your rights to pirate the single player game.

LAN play is essential

[roguegramma]

LAN play is essential, and today it should even support IPv6. Why?

Well, if the game ends to be a cash cow for the company many companies decide that they want to shut down the meta servers, or they simply become sloppy and have downtimes. For you to enjoy the game that you have "bought" after its days are over or to just show it to your kids, it is necessary to have LAN play.

And think of the poor astronauts on a dull journey to Mars. They will not be able to take advantage of blizzards servers they are maybe 8 light minutes away ;-)

too fucking long

[spire3661]

Seriously, how long have they been hyping this game? Jesus christ jsut release it already. Only Blizzard could get away with this long of a ramp up period. THe game has been done for quite a while, the beta is just a PR joke. How do i know its done? BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN HOLDING TOURNAMENTS WITH IT.

All signs say its going to suck

[Anonymous Coward]

What made starcraft good? Pretty simply, gameplay! Multi-user, online or off, flexibility, unexpected variations, ... but gameplay focused.

From what Ive been seeing an inordinate amount of effort has been made to have lifelike visuals. Thats great and all, but I hope it hasnt taken a backseat to some innovation in gameplay.

Will this next version be a pretty looking dud? I fear the worst, it seems to be a trend in the industry to focus on the visuals. Without simple, fun, interesting gameplay this is going to turn into unreal tournament 3.5

For the overmind

[ImYourVirus]

LAN play usually involves no internet, hence you can't connect to that matchmaking server you talk about. Even if you could is SC2 going to have the ability for more than one person to use the same line? SC didn't, and I think that's mostly the point.

Zealot warped in...

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife for hire!