Slashdot Mirror
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."
I was beginning to think this was Starcraft Forever
Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
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.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
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.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
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.
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.
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.)
As much as I enjoyed StarCraft, the acronym "SC2" will always be reserved for Star Control II in my mind.
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
"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...
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
*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.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
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.
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.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
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.
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.
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.
How do I uncompress my MD5 archive?
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.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
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.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Unlike spore I'd like it to not suck.
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.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
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.
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.
Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
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.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.