StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty

StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty News for PC

On: PC
Review Verdict Read Review
10Out of 10
Back to game info
StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty screenshot
StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty screenshot

Blizzard has categorically denied it is 'milking' the StarCraft franchise by deciding to release StarCraft II in three separate products.

At BlizzCon last month Blizzard revealed that the single-player campaign of the hotly anticipated follow-up to the still popular StarCraft will be divided into three products reflecting the game's three races - Terran, Zerg and Protoss. The first game in the series will be Terran: Wings of Liberty, followed by Zerg: Heart of Swarm and Protoss: Legend of the Void.

Some fans reacted angrily to the announcement, accusing Blizzard of milking the franchise, with some even openly promising to pirate the game when it comes out.

However, speaking to this afternoon in London prior to the midnight launch of World of Warcraft expansion Wrath of the Lich King, Paul Sams, chief operating officer, Blizzard Entertainment, gave his word that the decision was about providing a better experience, and not about making more money.

He said: "The fact of the matter is, it's absolutely, positively untrue about us trying to stretch it out and milk it. People think that it was a monetary driven decision. I can absolutely, positively tell you, with 100 per cent certainty, that that was not part of the conversation. I guarantee it. I give my word. There was never, ever a conversation where we said, 'let's do this because we're going to make more money'. I guarantee it. As a matter of fact the sole reason we did it was because we thought it was going to be a better experience. Anybody that says otherwise is not correct. It is absolutely not what we did it for."

At the time of the announcement StarCraft II lead producer Chris Sigaty revealed that Blizzard decided to launch the game in three parts because it got bigger than they expected and to include all three campaigns from the get go would have delayed the game for years.

Today Sams backed up that comment, saying it was a "quality driven decision".

"We're doing just fine," he added. "The customers, the players of Blizzard games have rewarded us handsomely for making the right decisions on gameplay. We don't ship games before they're done and we try to provide the best experience that we possibly can because that's our priority. We shipped a ton of games that have been great but we've also cancelled a ton of games that every other company that I know would have shipped. We don't compromise on quality, and so it was a quality driven decision. It's absolutely not a monetary decision. That's absolutely not true."

What do you think about the decision to release StarCraft II in three parts? Let us know in the comments section below.

New stuff to check out

To add your comment, please login or register

User Comments

Locutus's Avatar
Delete Post


Posted 04:57 on 03 February 2009
CapnSouth's Avatar
Delete Post


Corporations exist to make money. Just because they have tons of it doesn't mean they won't use tactics like this to make more. That being said, I will only be upset if there is significantly less game play in each release than there was in the original title. If they deliver 3x the content, then, IMO, it it worth 3x the money.
Posted 17:36 on 15 November 2008
Pops's Avatar
Delete Post


Am I the only one who sees this as just another greedy money grab on the part of a publisher? They don't need the money, but just as with any other addiction, they got to have it. Every time we the public let the power whores split a game and sell only one part of a bug riddled piece of trash, we give up the right to expect anything better. Tell them this IS NOT OK by refusing to buy the game. I for one would rather wait for one or at most two years and have a pleasing experience with a game. But for those of you who look forward to paying over $50 for each,"installment" get in line like cows to the slaughter.
For the love of god, stand your ground and tell the money swilling pigs that this must stop!
Posted 16:12 on 15 November 2008
Daveh's Avatar
Delete Post


For many years now, Blizzard have been know for refusing to release games until they are 100% ready (see starcraft ghost). What changed Blizzards mind? Why would Blizzard go back on a previous policy of only fully finished games if not because of a desire for more money.

As a devout Blizzard fan (No, not just WoW) i'm insulted to see that since the merger with Activision, Bliz would remove their previous zeal for quality in order to push releases. If Starcraft 2 is a TRUE Blizzard sequel, then it is worth the wait to see a game with all the polish and glory that made its predecessor so great.

Shame on you Activision/Blizzard
Posted 08:45 on 15 November 2008
adaadwwa's Avatar
Delete Post


Posted 04:11 on 15 November 2008
WSCP's Avatar
Delete Post


"I can absolutely, positively tell you, with 100 per cent certainty, that that was not part of the conversation. I guarantee it. I give my word."

- That was quite an easy think to say mmm.... let's see:

I can absolutely, positively tell you, with 100 per cent certainty, that I will not just download the cracked game off site or bittorrent and play it over Hamachi. I guarantee it. I give my word.
Posted 03:26 on 15 November 2008
WSCP's Avatar
Delete Post


What Blizzard promises about "not in it for money" is complete nonsense. If they are not in it for money, why don't they just provide the other parts of the campaign as free downloads?

What we want out of a RST game is the online multiplayer (the driving force for us not to pirate the game), the campaign themselves have very limited replay value to most gamers. Discs with only campaigns aren't worth any amount offered.
Posted 03:21 on 15 November 2008
Syhr's Avatar
Delete Post


Anyone notice that the games industry is doing bulls**t like this more often? The games industry is worth a lot of money, but instead of pushing for quality franchises that generate mass user support, they go out and find cynical ways to generate profit.

If they're serious about this not being about milking the IP then why haven't they proposed doing it DLC for free ala the Witcher Enhanced Edition? The argument of course is going to be "Well lord of the rings was in three parts and everyone was happy to see that", shenanigans, 10 bucks for a movie, 90 bucks for a game (at least in Australia)
Posted 00:42 on 14 November 2008
nuts's Avatar
Delete Post


MOOOOOOOO! milkers.

its all about the $$$
Posted 22:58 on 13 November 2008
JK's Avatar
Delete Post


Chase, you say all these things against Blizzard, and then you go on to say that they made WoW suck? hm...I would say there are enough people who play WoW to show that your claim that Blizzard is ruining their games is false.

Aside from that. They are not just talking about splitting one full game into three separate distributions. They are claiming that each iteration of the game is going to count as one full game, in it of itself.

Let's look at it another way, the game has been in development for a while. Blizzard has huge plans for Starcraft 2. Would you mind waiting another 3 years for everything to be set and be charged $150 for that game? You have to factor in development costs, ect...ect... I trust Blizzard to go all out and make a great game. They've been pretty successful in doing just that.

Besides, you're only saying that you won't buy the game so that they either lower the price of each game or give it of it at once for one low price. Despite what you say, I think you'll buy it. You may grunt and moan while you're in line waiting for the game, but you'll still buy it. Either that or wait for all three games to come out together for 20 bucks, which will probably be 4-6 years in the future.
Posted 21:21 on 13 November 2008
Chase's Avatar
Delete Post


How.... the HELL... does making us spend money three times make for a greater gaming experience?

You've got to be STUPID to fall for that cheap trick.

Honestly, Paul Sams, you're either a liar, or an idiot.

In what way is three separate-part distributions better than one full game?

Is it more convenient? NO, you have to get the game three times, which means that it's going to be either:
A. Three trips to the store or one massive expensive trip to the store for one game that comes with no hardware or anything like that to make it worth the expensive price tag.
B. Three massive downloads that cost money each time (come on, now, if it was three massive FREE torrents, I'd buy it, but **** you, Blizzard)
C. Three massive headaches that, if you only get one, you have a 1/3 chance of getting the lamest of the three storylines.

These better be no more than $20 a piece.

If they aren't trying to make money, then they'll make the game total $60 like any other game.

If the game totals more than $60, then they're out to make money, despite what Paul Sams says.

I'm tired of all of this bullox.

The least Paul could have done was explain to us /how/ it's 'not a money making scheme'

He doesn't get anywhere /near/ saying how. He just says it isn't, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong...

That sounds more like to me someone trying to get the people that don't care as much off their backs without having to support why the people who care a lot are wrong.

Good going, Blizzard, first you ripped my heart out with making WoW suck. Then you step on it with this bulls**t "we're seriously not being an evil corporation" lie.

What next? Diablo III is going to charge for each class?
Posted 17:27 on 13 November 2008
Soloman's Avatar
Delete Post



Why is that IZZY? These are probably the same people that buy WoW, all the expansions and spend $15 a month on a subscription. Of course they are going to milk the crowd, they have been buying into it this whole time. I too had a WoW addiction, until I realized how much it was costing me...and not just money. This game will sell in the millions, but I know I won't be purchasing it.
Posted 14:26 on 13 November 2008
Visceralvilain's Avatar
Delete Post


I'm sure as hell not going to buy each episode independently. They sure are going to do a good job supporting piracy. Unless every episode is $20 there is NO way. But I'm sure there are plenty of die hard sheep that will pay $60 per episode. What a joke. It's like they forgot who supports their fat asses. Looks like they are starting to steal plays from EA's handbook.
Posted 14:22 on 13 November 2008
IzzyDranik's Avatar
Delete Post


I think that if they want to prove to us that they are not milking the IP.. then they should release each of the campaigns at a price lower than the standard PC game price. I think spending ~$150 for the complete game... is a bit much, let alone counting for Collectors Editions and whatnot that would push that price even higher... I guess that we need to just wait and see.
Posted 13:49 on 13 November 2008
GamerPlaya's Avatar
Delete Post


Milking it or not, I bet this will be one of the most pirated games of all time when it comes out. But if I had to vote, I'd say they are milking it and this is probably just the start. Wait until the say Diablo 3 is coming out in 3 episodes, lol.
Posted 12:30 on 13 November 2008

Game Stats

System Requirements
Release Date: 27/07/2010
Developer: Blizzard Entertainment
Publisher: Blizzard Entertainment
Genre: Real-time strategy
No. Players: 1 + Online
Rating: PEGI 16+
Site Rank: 140 3
View Full Site