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

[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: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.

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?

[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?

[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: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.

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

[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?

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

[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.

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...

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: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: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?

[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.

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: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.

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.