Blizzard COO: We're not milking StarCraft 2
Paul Sams gives us his word releasing StarCraft II in 3 parts was not a monetary decision.
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 VideoGamer.com 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.
User Comments
Locutus
CapnSouth
Pops
For the love of god, stand your ground and tell the money swilling pigs that this must stop!
Daveh
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
adaadwwa
WSCP
- 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.
WSCP
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.
Syhr
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)
nuts
its all about the $$$
JK
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.
Chase
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?
Soloman
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.
Visceralvilain
IzzyDranik
GamerPlaya