"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 one hundred percent certainty, that that was not part of the conversation," said Sams.
"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," expressed Sams, "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."According to what StarCraft II lead producer Chris Sigaty said at BlizzCon, the game was separated into three parts because the game had got so big that otherwise it would have meant delaying the release of the game.
"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."
Yesterday Sams backed up that comment, saying it was a "quality driven decision.""We're doing just fine," said Sams. "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."
Sams went onto say, "We shipped a ton of games that have been great but we've also canceled 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."
--
[photo from Kotaku] / VideoGamer










http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-VF-PHMPZc
bigupidsoftware
Personally I dont care how much I need to spend money on their games cos the quality is just so overwhelming. SC1 for example Ive played it since 98', their games never die...
PLAY SMART! DON'T GET SLOPPY!
let's hope the game will be ...decent...
SC II is similar to SC I but has different units and a different dynamic with more powerful units. If SC II mission 2 is again a different dynamic then it's a bad thing. If it's just an update for the single player campaign then it will be a flop. So I don't think that their decision is good.
I will buy the games no matter what anyhow, I play and keep playing Blizzard games for years, they don't make shitty console titles that last for two weeks.
Can't wait to try it )
As for the price, idc how much all 3 of em cost, I'll be buying them all anyway. Their games llast for years unlike those overpriced half-decent console titles like HALO. (/taunt halo fanboys)
Also,people that focus more on the multiplayer aspect of the game won't have any concerns either,as long as the ONLY thing that changes in the next part is the campaign,and probably the new maps that will be added.
However,things might get complicated in case new units and other gameplay changes that affect multiplayer mode are implemented in the next two parts.
Oh well,just wait and see how it'll go.
after i already played them for probably at least a year in the mp part of the
first release. If you know all units and good strategies, i don't think the campaign
will be much of a challenge. The only solution would be some new units, but this
would mean mp-only player have to buy the second and third part, even they don't
care about the campaign. I don't think blizzard will throw in new units just for the
campaign.
i mean the first part will cost like 50€ the second and third either so I pay 150€ for one game???
dont think the story of the campaigns can be so great that they can go as an solo game...
sc is definitely one of the best pc- (!)games ever made, but whats the point to sell like 3 seperate games if u cud make it one? blaming halo (actually a fps --> completely different game type) and other console games just shows that you are immature (you sound like your frustrated of being beat by 13-year-olds in matchmaking and not becoming skill ten for lieutenant) since its a matter of taste if one likes them or not especially if theyre proclaimed to be a triology (refering to halo)
regardless whatever youre thinkin of them you shudnt generalize
but, it's not totaly about money because blizzard has been following this "its ready when its ready" rule for the last 10 or so years and so far they haven't really made a "garbage" game like EA does with their need for speed series (LIKE NO1 HAS SEEN FAST & FURIOUS LOL). Anyway, enough for bashing other companies, I just don't get why people get so upset. If blizz wanted to get more money (like they are not getting enough from wow) they would release a game that has 20h of gameplay instead of waiting/perfecting their current version of the game.