StarCraft: Remastered is now available for pre-purchase!
StarCraft: Remastered brings you the real-time strategy you know and love with modern luxuries. Experience the iconic story in new ways, revisit your favorite lines and audio like it’s the first time, and experience gameplay with unprecedented and incredible visual detail.
Pre-purchasing now will grant you access to multiple unlockable goodies, including three exclusive skins: the Char Hive, Korhal Command Center, and the Aiur Nexus! These skins will become available to use when the game goes live on August 14th, and are only available to those who pre-purchase before that date.
As an additional thank you, all players who purchase or upgrade to StarCraft: Remastered will unlock three portraits in StarCraft II, as well as the Stukov Co-op Missions Commander.
We’re extremely excited for the upcoming release of StarCraft: Remastered, and hope you are too!
Someone re-up'd. But not sure if this is allowed or (if its not supposed to be viewable to the public, msg me and I'll stop updating the link once i see new videos being up'd).
On June 30 2017 10:36 LaStScan wrote: Gonna buy the limited edition. That cc hive and nexus are pretty dope. I wish they add sc2 dva voice pack in remastered.
I don't think there's limited edition, it just sounds like pre-order bonus (can't find other versions online atm)
They're gonna have to explain that discrepancy about matchmaking being only a Remastered feature unlike what they've mentioned before
I mean it makes sense that you would want that feature as a motivation for people to actually buy the new version, but yeah i am a bit disappointed :D Though the price is definitely fair, so it's fine i guess.
tbh, I don't mind this decision at all considering how I was worried about possible smurfing issues (without remastered, one person can make ton of accounts whenever they feel like and start off fresh, which would possibly destroy the MM system)
They're gonna have to explain that discrepancy about matchmaking being only a Remastered feature unlike what they've mentioned before
I mean it makes sense that you would want that feature as a motivation for people to actually buy the new version, but yeah i am a bit disappointed :D Though the price is definitely fair, so it's fine i guess.
Blizzard likes to use the purchase box price as a deterrent to hackers. but if they promised free matchmaking and now they are changing that... that is bad.
Overall everyone and anyone will nit-pick the graphics, what's important to me is my eyes recognized things without 2nd glances and watching that video fullscreen I was able to, no problem.
As WaxAngel said in his article, sometimes he forgot he was playing SC:R, which gives me great hope.
I'm very happy how this looks even though I could go on about small items that bother me. The problem I have right now is Remastered required to MM... I suspect many people can't even remotely play SC:R and won't be on ladder. :\
On June 30 2017 10:49 supernovamaniac wrote: tbh, I don't mind this decision at all considering how I was worried about possible smurfing issues (without remastered, one person can make ton of accounts whenever they feel like and start off fresh, which would possibly destroy the MM system)
Hmmm that's a good point, I hope that was their reasoning when they decided to just make it available for the remaster.
On June 30 2017 10:34 supernovamaniac wrote: EDIT:
No matchmaking for 1.18? Gutted!
fish will probably still have manual ladder games
but yea not having access to bnet matchmaking kinda sucks
Although the official website still says
FEATURES
A new era of StarCraft has arrived. Play for free with improved matchmaking and accessibility, or upgrade to StarCraft: Remastered to unlock 4K graphics, 16x9 aspect ratio, and more!
A new era of StarCraft has arrived. Play for free with improved matchmaking and accessibility, or upgrade to StarCraft: Remastered to unlock 4K graphics, 16x9 aspect ratio, and more!
So I don't know what's going on there
They realized if they gave away matchmaking for free that ppl wouldn't really have any incentive to buy remastered (especially the oldschoolers).
I went to Blizz a few days ago for the SC: Remastered preview. I thought it was ridiculously faithful to the original game in terms of feel, to the degree that I totally forgot I was playing a different version at points.
I will point out though, that I'm not a stickler for graphics, whether it's games, movies, internet videos, or whatever. I'm sure there are gonna be some hawkeyed players out there who go "OMG TOTALLY UNPLAYABLE" and it would be a justified opinion for them.
I guess the digital goodies are extra SC:R portraits, custom town halls, WoW pet, and I guess three Starcraft heroes in HotS and something about Hearthstone?
I guess the digital goodies are extra SC:R portraits, custom town halls, WoW pet, and I guess three Starcraft heroes in HotS and something about Hearthstone?
They're gonna have to explain that discrepancy about matchmaking being only a Remastered feature unlike what they've mentioned before
I mean it makes sense that you would want that feature as a motivation for people to actually buy the new version, but yeah i am a bit disappointed :D Though the price is definitely fair, so it's fine i guess.
Blizzard likes to use the purchase box price as a deterrent to hackers. but if they promised free matchmaking and now they are changing that... that is bad.
Yeah thinking about it a bit more, it's basically dividing the community as well. I hope this is an error in the checkbox and not actually true :/
They're gonna have to explain that discrepancy about matchmaking being only a Remastered feature unlike what they've mentioned before
I mean it makes sense that you would want that feature as a motivation for people to actually buy the new version, but yeah i am a bit disappointed :D Though the price is definitely fair, so it's fine i guess.
Blizzard likes to use the purchase box price as a deterrent to hackers. but if they promised free matchmaking and now they are changing that... that is bad.
Yeah thinking about it a bit more, it's basically dividing the community as well. I hope this is an error in the checkbox and not actually true :/
I was a bit misled into thinking that matchmaking would have been for 1.18 as well, as they said the games would be completely cross-compatible sans graphic/audio, but to be honest I kind of expected this. The price tag is a lot lower than I assumed it would be, and overall it doesn't look too bad. I like a lot of the Protoss units, and the Terran buildings hit me in a warm soft spot that makes me giggle like a little girl. Not real happy with Lurkers, but whatever. I can't wait for Day9 to come back to Brood War as a caster / analyst and one day cast one of my games. It is probably something I would one day tell my children and write on my resume if I ever get a job. Also the custom skins were something I highly expected to be in SC:R. And to be honest, they look kinda nice. I welcome more skins because they don't really detract anything from the game and are purely aesthetic. And I'm sure there will be an option to turn them off.
I really do hope they reconsider the matchmaking thing. I feel there's a bit of an aura of complacency with revival BW right now that's obscuring the fact that the game absolutely needs new players at some point (hopefully the current bunch can carry it for a long time). A free game with good matchmaking hardly guarantees that kids will start playing BW, but it's really the best shot BW has for generation change, and in the best case, growth.
I actually see an issue with death animations here. before, it was easy to spot and tell what dies or had died. they took that away for some of the units (e.g. very noticeably for marines and zerglings). it's almost impossible to count that now.
What Blizzard hadn't made clear until this week's event is that there's another on-the-fly visual toggle, currently mapped to F7: a combination of real-time lighting and environmental effects.
Turning this on adds seven graphical passes on top of the engine, based on whichever sprites are currently live: a depth map, a brightness map, an emissive map (solely for "glowing" objects), a normal map, a specular map, and an ambient occlusion bake. Toggling these adds a little bit of GPU overhead, as do optional lighting maps on pools and "heat waves" on lava. The result won't make you believe you've gotten a truly realistic coat of paint, but it does help the older-engine medicine go down a little smoother. "It gives this 2.5-D feel," Sousa says.
the lighting's looked a little weird and flat in all the screenshots i've seen, so i'm curious to see whether this will improve it.
On June 30 2017 10:53 Essbee wrote: Skins? Seriously?
And no matchmaking if you don't buy the remaster?
Im sure that since around 2006, people already played on cracked version. I also believe that there are plenty of users who never bought sc and enjoyed the game.
15$ isnt too much to ask to be honest... Just change your mind like you treated a person a nice meal for dinner and made a strong bond. Blizzard did a lot of work to get this sc hyped again. Clap clap
On June 30 2017 10:53 Essbee wrote: Skins? Seriously?
And no matchmaking if you don't buy the remaster?
Im sure that since around 2006, people already played on cracked version. I also believe that there are plenty of users who never bought sc and enjoyed the game.
15$ isnt too much to ask to be honest... Just change your mind like you treated a person a nice meal for dinner and made a strong bond. Blizzard did a lot of work to get this sc hyped again. Clap clap
You are right that it's not too much money to ask for it, but i am still a bit concerned about there being no matchmaking for 1.18. It has the potential to divide the community.
On June 30 2017 10:53 Essbee wrote: Skins? Seriously?
And no matchmaking if you don't buy the remaster?
Im sure that since around 2006, people already played on cracked version. I also believe that there are plenty of users who never bought sc and enjoyed the game.
15$ isnt too much to ask to be honest... Just change your mind like you treated a person a nice meal for dinner and made a strong bond. Blizzard did a lot of work to get this sc hyped again. Clap clap
You are right that it's not too much money to ask for it, but i am still a bit concerned about there being no matchmaking for 1.18. It has the potential to divide the community.
Divide what community? How many people are there to divide? Do you actually believe that the rest playing on 1.18 is going to missed?
1. The protoss interface as others have pointed out is shit, but I have to imagine it's just a rough draft so hopefully it's not a problem. The zerg/terran one looks good enough imo. There are also a couple of alignment issues with the UI/graphics, but once again hopefully not a problem on release. If the product was perfect, then it wouldn't be in development, it'd be released.
2. $15 is a lot less than I thought it'd be, which is cool. Was expecting more like $20-25.
3. Mixed thoughts about matchmaking being exclusive to remastered. There is the obvious argument about spliiting the community, but I personally don't think this'll be that big of an issue. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think most people who are 1/2 serious about playing bw will get remastered even if they don't completely care for the skins. A counter argument for keeping matchmaking solely for people who play are smurfs/hackers, as there really wouldn't be a way to stop people from smurfing/hacking in a free game.
I think it is gorgeous; the gameplay video looks better than the first preview and exceeds the expectations.
The only problems I have are with Eggs and Archons looking weird, Protoss UI and Zerglings being out of place (to tall?). These are not a huge issues. Superexcited.
Note interesting thing from the Artstechnica article:
"Blizzard Classic already announced that StarCraft Remastered will include a "make game look old" button, which I tested roughly every 20 seconds in my session. The default key binding, F5, will switch the game's graphics from new to old and back again at any time. What Blizzard hadn't made clear until this week's event is that there's another on-the-fly visual toggle, currently mapped to F7: a combination of real-time lighting and environmental effects."
"However, the Korean community wanted to make sure that its preferred matchmaking solutions, including Fish, be made compatible with SC:R."
Yeah it's interesting I read that and I mean they have gone to Korea 10 times and started development 18 months ago. In that same link:
"We did a lot of research and asked a lot of people about 16 versus 4:3," Sousa said to Ars. "We thought that was going to be the biggest problem, right? But the pros we asked about it, they all said it doesn’t really matter."
Stilwell confirmed that Blizzard's SC:R development began "18 months ago" with trips to South Korea to recruit the original game's professional players as consultants and testers. "We've been there 10 times in the past year alone," Stilwell said. The community was adamant that various issues remain untouched and even "broken" in any remaster, with the game's "automatic pathfinding" cited as the biggest example (meaning, if you tell an SCV to walk to a distant point, it will still likely take a circuitous and even incorrect route there). However, the Korean community wanted to make sure that its preferred matchmaking solutions, including Fish, be made compatible with SC:R."
The only thing I worry about is lag/compatibility issues like 1.18 had at launch. But sounds like they've been working on the remastered a lot longer than I thought and I assume longer then 1.18, so hopefully there are no performance issues.
On June 30 2017 12:18 B-royal wrote: Will we be able to use classic graphics in the remastered edition? If so, I might buy it.
100%. If you press F5 it will change from the remastered edition to classic graphics (and vice versa).
I don't see a problem with matchmaking only in Remaster. It's not like you're forced into the new graphics in Remaster. Use the old graphics and default keybinds and it's the same game as 1.16, you just now also get matchmaking.
The game is less expensive than most people thought. And I don't see how paying for new features hinders anything.
15 dollars is better than expected. If I don't like the graphics I will just play classic graphics or something. Even if I'm disappointed with some of the graphics and the ladder being pay walled I want BW to succeed into the future.
They're gonna have to explain that discrepancy about matchmaking being only a Remastered feature unlike what they've mentioned before
I mean it makes sense that you would want that feature as a motivation for people to actually buy the new version, but yeah i am a bit disappointed :D Though the price is definitely fair, so it's fine i guess.
Blizzard likes to use the purchase box price as a deterrent to hackers. but if they promised free matchmaking and now they are changing that... that is bad.
Yeah thinking about it a bit more, it's basically dividing the community as well. I hope this is an error in the checkbox and not actually true :/
Dividing the community into people who can afford $15 and people who can't?
On June 30 2017 10:27 thedeadhaji wrote: O_o Windows only.
The main page literally says mac right next to pc XD
They definitely updated that page since the time I looked at it (actually layout looks very different from the version I saw). There was only a Windows logo that was substantially larger and in blue, not white and next to the Mac logo. I guess they caught their error quickly (glad it was just a clerical error!)
They're gonna have to explain that discrepancy about matchmaking being only a Remastered feature unlike what they've mentioned before
I mean it makes sense that you would want that feature as a motivation for people to actually buy the new version, but yeah i am a bit disappointed :D Though the price is definitely fair, so it's fine i guess.
Blizzard likes to use the purchase box price as a deterrent to hackers. but if they promised free matchmaking and now they are changing that... that is bad.
Yeah thinking about it a bit more, it's basically dividing the community as well. I hope this is an error in the checkbox and not actually true :/
Dividing the community into people who can afford $15 and people who can't?
seeing that $15 is nothing to you, do you mind buying me a copy or two of SC:R?
"You're correct in assuming that matchmaking will not be included as part of 1.18. It is currently slated to be available to everyone once we release SC:R."
On June 30 2017 11:18 Waxangel wrote: I really do hope they reconsider the matchmaking thing. I feel there's a bit of an aura of complacency with revival BW right now that's obscuring the fact that the game absolutely needs new players at some point (hopefully the current bunch can carry it for a long time). A free game with good matchmaking hardly guarantees that kids will start playing BW, but it's really the best shot BW has for generation change, and in the best case, growth.
Will this be an issue? I don't want to sound like I understand Korea works, but I assume the remaster will be freely available to pc bangs who pay the licensing fees? So I'm assuming that cost is going to be a non issue. Am I wrong?
"You're correct in assuming that matchmaking will not be included as part of 1.18. It is currently slated to be available to everyone once we release SC:R."
:3
They were probably just talking about ShieldBattery :3
On June 30 2017 11:47 Ars0n_ wrote: Protoss interface looks so flat. Also I dont know if it was the recording but all the animations in that gameplay video looked laggy to me.
I really hope that was the recording not the actual gameplay
"You're correct in assuming that matchmaking will not be included as part of 1.18. It is currently slated to be available to everyone once we release SC:R."
:3
So that means that August -> SC 1.19 (1.2?) -> free matchmaking?
This is disgusting. Why we are paying for ladder? What happened to the "Free can play everything as Remastered. They are the same game but with different graphics"
OK seriously what a joke is this?
"Play for free with improved matchmaking system. But you still have to pay for it".
On June 30 2017 15:13 Wrath wrote: This is disgusting. Why we are paying for ladder? What happened to the "Free can play everything as Remastered. They are the same game but with different graphics"
"You're correct in assuming that matchmaking will not be included as part of 1.18. It is currently slated to be available to everyone once we release SC:R."
:3
So that means that August -> SC 1.19 (1.2?) -> free matchmaking?
"You're correct in assuming that matchmaking will not be included as part of 1.18. It is currently slated to be available to everyone once we release SC:R."
:3
So that means that August -> SC 1.19 (1.2?) -> free matchmaking?
I assume it'll be 1.19 according to the arstechnica article. The article also officially confirmed the existence of 1.17, although they ultimately skipped that patch to partner with Fish so that the server could be worked into 1.18.
I think that having to pay for matchmaking will help deter cheaters. And now they can also be banned, as before banning a free acount wasn't that effective.
On June 30 2017 10:53 Essbee wrote: Skins? Seriously?
And no matchmaking if you don't buy the remaster?
Im sure that since around 2006, people already played on cracked version. I also believe that there are plenty of users who never bought sc and enjoyed the game.
15$ isnt too much to ask to be honest... Just change your mind like you treated a person a nice meal for dinner and made a strong bond. Blizzard did a lot of work to get this sc hyped again. Clap clap
"You're correct in assuming that matchmaking will not be included as part of 1.18. It is currently slated to be available to everyone once we release SC:R."
:3
So that means that August -> SC 1.19 (1.2?) -> free matchmaking?
No, initially it was supposed to be available for both versions of the game (remastered and non remastered) but they changed it. You now need to buy remastered in order to have access to the matchmaking and leaderboard.
That said, fish is gonna keep their manual matchmaking system, meaning if you really dont wanna buy the game you'll still be able to ladder on fish. Matchmaking will probably only be available on bnet, fish might have it too but im not sure it'll count towards ladder games (but thats just me speculating).
They're gonna have to explain that discrepancy about matchmaking being only a Remastered feature unlike what they've mentioned before
I mean it makes sense that you would want that feature as a motivation for people to actually buy the new version, but yeah i am a bit disappointed :D Though the price is definitely fair, so it's fine i guess.
Blizzard likes to use the purchase box price as a deterrent to hackers. but if they promised free matchmaking and now they are changing that... that is bad.
Yeah thinking about it a bit more, it's basically dividing the community as well. I hope this is an error in the checkbox and not actually true :/
Dividing the community into people who can afford $15 and people who can't?
seeing that $15 is nothing to you, do you mind buying me a copy or two of SC:R?
I paid 22€ to watch batman vs superman and didnt finish it,i also did buy wol hots lotv for no reason i played like 4 days then stop.i think 15$ for remastered is'worth it.or just keep playing iccup.
"You're correct in assuming that matchmaking will not be included as part of 1.18. It is currently slated to be available to everyone once we release SC:R."
:3
So that means that August -> SC 1.19 (1.2?) -> free matchmaking?
Fish is gonna keep their manual matchmaking system, meaning if you really dont wanna buy the game you'll still be able to ladder on fish. Matchmaking will probably only be available on bnet, fish might have it too but im not sure it'll count towards ladder games (but thats just me speculating).
"You're correct in assuming that matchmaking will not be included as part of 1.18. It is currently slated to be available to everyone once we release SC:R."
:3
So that means that August -> SC 1.19 (1.2?) -> free matchmaking?
Fish is gonna keep their manual matchmaking system, meaning if you really dont wanna buy the game you'll still be able to ladder on fish. Matchmaking will probably only be available on bnet, fish might have it too but im not sure it'll count towards ladder games (but thats just me speculating).
A fish admin told me there is not mm
Too bad, matchmaking for team games would have been cool . I don't really mind not having matchmaking for 1v1 ladder games, woulda been nice to find team games quickly tho. Oh well there's still asia i guess.
I don't think $15 is too much to ask. Remember, the whole reason Blizzard tried to destroy competitive BW was because it wasn't making them any money. I think $15 is a pretty good compromise. Programmers and artists don't work for free.
They're gonna have to explain that discrepancy about matchmaking being only a Remastered feature unlike what they've mentioned before
I mean it makes sense that you would want that feature as a motivation for people to actually buy the new version, but yeah i am a bit disappointed :D Though the price is definitely fair, so it's fine i guess.
Blizzard likes to use the purchase box price as a deterrent to hackers. but if they promised free matchmaking and now they are changing that... that is bad.
Yeah thinking about it a bit more, it's basically dividing the community as well. I hope this is an error in the checkbox and not actually true :/
Dividing the community into people who can afford $15 and people who can't?
seeing that $15 is nothing to you, do you mind buying me a copy or two of SC:R?
I paid 22€ to watch batman vs superman and didnt finish it,i also did buy wol hots lotv for no reason i played like 4 days then stop.i think 15$ for remastered is'worth it.or just keep playing iccup.
lol yeah i actually think i overpaid a LOT for sc2, even though i mostly bought all 3 games on sale, but on the back of my mind i kept thinking that this is me paying blizzard for all years of bw. I think i still owe blizzard for bw. $15 is really nothing for this game.
On June 30 2017 16:07 TT1 wrote: I really hope they do something about the Protoss UI... doesn't look good at all.
I must be the only person who can't see a problem with it. Then again I don't play Toss.
that was my thought with the protoss victory screen.i was like why is everyone complaining,it looks ok to me.then i realized i dont play protoss and i dont spend more than 1 second on that screen,i dont really stop in that section.im a just a machine that enter the game and out the game to start a new one right after :D
On June 30 2017 16:07 TT1 wrote: I really hope they do something about the Protoss UI... doesn't look good at all.
I must be the only person who can't see a problem with it. Then again I don't play Toss.
Dunno i just think it's too noticeable (due to the color) and the tribal design looks kinda ghetto. Terran and Zerg's UI for example fades into the background which is how it should be imo. That said Z's UI is kinda messed up, unit names overlap with the top part, pics:
On June 30 2017 16:58 Creager wrote: I honestly cannot believe they went through and brought skins to BW... That is such an enormous let down for me personally.
As long as you can toggle the skins off i dont care, ill be playing w/ the old graphics anyways. Anything that promotes the game and increases the player base is positive.
I don't understand people complaining that they will have to pay 15$ to play matchmaking. Is 15 dollars really a lot to ask from Blizzard side? You can still ghetto up and keep playing iccup on 1.18 or something. New looks, new UI and other implemented goods for 15$ seems fair to me, so as I said, I pre-purchased.
On June 30 2017 16:58 Creager wrote: I honestly cannot believe they went through and brought skins to BW... That is such an enormous let down for me personally.
are you honestly gonna cry about skins of all things?
On June 30 2017 16:58 Creager wrote: I honestly cannot believe they went through and brought skins to BW... That is such an enormous let down for me personally.
are you honestly gonna cry about skins of all things?
People do not like change, even if it makes no difference to the way they see or play the game. It happens with everything.
On June 30 2017 17:02 739 wrote: I don't understand people complaining that they will have to pay 15$ to play matchmaking. Is 15 dollars really a lot to ask from Blizzard side? You can still ghetto up and keep playing iccup on 1.18 or something. New looks, new UI and other implemented goods for 15$ seems fair to me, so as I said, I pre-purchased.
Lol! Based on the dramatic posts, I thought there was a legitimate monthly fee or something we would have to pay to play ladder, but found no evidence of anything like that. It's absolutely hilarious that these people are bitching about a one time fee of $15.00 for such a remarkable feature and more.
On June 30 2017 16:58 Creager wrote: I honestly cannot believe they went through and brought skins to BW... That is such an enormous let down for me personally.
An enormous let down by putting optional cc/nexus/hatch skins? lol
On June 30 2017 16:58 Creager wrote: I honestly cannot believe they went through and brought skins to BW... That is such an enormous let down for me personally.
An enormous let down by putting optional cc/nexus/hatch skins? lol
Well, I take it people are upset because they don't want to see graphical elements/designs of SC2 brought over to BW. We've already seen it with a few of the victory screens.
"Observer mode" : does it mean we will have the full prod tabs, income and supplies like in SC2? I vastly prefer the blindness of BW cast, that would be an enormous let down.
I believe it is pretty cheap for a remastered version. I don't mind the mm not being present for original BW for I will mostly play on Fish and anyway I don't think there will be enough people to make mm that useful because our little community is already scattered on 6 different servers. I mean how are you gonna find a relevant game on Tau Cross zerg opponent only, on Europe server Tuesday 2pm? Come on... Fish is the only way.
Can we have the matchmaking and leaderboard but playing on old game? I don't mind paying for remaster but I don't like change and doesn't really need those extra languages or other features offered by the remaster.
On June 30 2017 17:36 nojok wrote: "Observer mode" : does it mean we will have the full prod tabs, income and supplies like in SC2? I vastly prefer the blindness of BW cast, that would be an enormous let down.
Not a good comparison. Full production tabs are actually informative/helpful/useful for spectators. Skins do nothing of the sort.
In video posted game looks so cartoonish to me. Anyone else think so? I think i will stick with original graphics. Also archon is ugly, especially compared to remastered presentation archon.
That gameplay video is so disappointing. Shiny flat paper mache characters, terran bio exploding into blocks of lego. I assume they will address these until Aug 14th and this isn't the final looks of it.
On June 30 2017 16:58 Creager wrote: I honestly cannot believe they went through and brought skins to BW... That is such an enormous let down for me personally.
As long as you can toggle the skins off i dont care, ill be playing w/ the old graphics anyways. Anything that promotes the game and increases the player base is positive.
Yeah, would love to have that for SC2 as well, but that falls on deaf ears at Blizz, so I wouldn't be too sure they have something like that for BW, although I certainly hope so.
On June 30 2017 16:58 Creager wrote: I honestly cannot believe they went through and brought skins to BW... That is such an enormous let down for me personally.
are you honestly gonna cry about skins of all things?
People do not like change, even if it makes no difference to the way they see or play the game. It happens with everything.
For me it's completely unneccessary change. It's about a remaster of a classic, so why the hell would you need skins in that? Didn't need skins back then, doesn't need skins now. As I've repeatedly said in other threads regarding this topic: As long as there is an option to turn cosmetics off, fine, go ahead, but don't force that shit onto people who don't want to see this.
The visual upgrade is nice, but not why people are coming. A larger player base + mmaking is the only real draw here.
For those two things alone, a $15 price point might seem pretty unreasonable to some when you get to the bottom of it. SCR is being released in 2017 into a market flooded with so many FTP multiplayer-only games, and they're asking for money for their game goes the thinking.
Of course, I don't subscribe that thinking at all. SC is the greatest strategy game of all time, so yeah, they're gonna get my money, and if you're complaining about $15 you can just play it without the graphical update or one of the many, many other FTP multiplayer only games out there.
omfg those skins are god ugly... looks worse than something that people added though modding the original. also, i would really like a boxed version for international ppl
If there is one thing I don't like in the HD graphics, it is the dead skins of units. The hydra, zergling, marine, probe, lurker etc.. have a inconspicuous death animation and/or cadaver skin.
On June 30 2017 18:42 Glioburd wrote: If there is one thing I don't like in the HD graphics, it is the dead skins of units. The hydra, zergling, marine, probe, lurker etc.. have a inconspicuous death animation and/or cadaver skin.
when protoss units die it looks exactly like how the hallucination death animation looked in broodwar, ESPECIALLY corsairs in that b-roll video linked on the first page
On June 30 2017 18:21 Arrian wrote: The visual upgrade is nice, but not why people are coming. A larger player base + mmaking is the only real draw here.
For those two things alone, a $15 price point might seem pretty unreasonable to some when you get to the bottom of it. SCR is being released in 2017 into a market flooded with so many FTP multiplayer-only games, and they're asking for money for their game goes the thinking.
Of course, I don't subscribe that thinking at all. SC is the greatest strategy game of all time, so yeah, they're gonna get my money, and if you're complaining about $15 you can just play it without the graphical update or one of the many, many other FTP multiplayer only games out there.
People here are complaining about the turnaround on matchmaking. They said it would have been free for months and today they change idea and make it 15$.
I hope that I don't have to pay 15$ for the custom hotkeys too. It would be a shame,even more considering we tried them during the PTR
I just preordered. I don't really like some of the new graphics effects, but I want to see remastered campaign, play matchmaking and I think 15$ is OK price for it.
On June 30 2017 17:02 739 wrote: I don't understand people complaining that they will have to pay 15$ to play matchmaking. Is 15 dollars really a lot to ask from Blizzard side? You can still ghetto up and keep playing iccup on 1.18 or something. New looks, new UI and other implemented goods for 15$ seems fair to me, so as I said, I pre-purchased.
Lol! Based on the dramatic posts, I thought there was a legitimate monthly fee or something we would have to pay to play ladder, but found no evidence of anything like that. It's absolutely hilarious that these people are bitching about a one time fee of $15.00 for such a remarkable feature and more.
Based on some of the posts I've read this could be free and people will still be whining about something.
LOL people seriously crying over the 15 dollar price or that they added skins into BW? Are you serious? I expected at 30-40 dollar price and skins were inevitable tbh. Micro transactions are the trend in games nowadays and the companies earn a lot of money from them. As long as you can disable (which was confirmed afaik) any skins, then it does not harm you in any way and is only beneficial to keep new players in the game.
On June 30 2017 18:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: I just preordered, other Aussies should too since the governments new 10% GST on overseas purchases comes into effect tomorrow.
Haha what a timing by Blizzard, good for you guys :D
Damn, I've preordered SC:R for 15$ . And then I noticed that Russian and Brazilian users can buy it for 10$ on RU/BR version of the Blizzard website. Lucky me :<
On June 30 2017 20:52 danielias wrote: $15 and you complain? You are demanding so much...I hate such clients. If you dont like it dont play it, simple. Go cry under your bed
Do you realize that people are not against the 15 $ price of remastered,but against the fake promises of Blizzard employers who said that Matchmaking was going to be free?
On June 30 2017 20:52 danielias wrote: $15 and you complain? You are demanding so much...I hate such clients. If you dont like it dont play it, simple. Go cry under your bed
I don't like being lied to. Price of the game doesn't matter, it's about principles. I mean that's why we pretty much can't have nice games in 2017 because of consumers like you who are happy with unfinished games and companies delivering those products in pre-alpha state and in-game shops for cosmetic addons. Too bad blizzard joined this horrible trend in the industry. I really really hope it's just those 3 skins and no more micro-in game purchases... but let's be real - that's just my wishful thinking...
On June 30 2017 20:52 danielias wrote: $15 and you complain? You are demanding so much...I hate such clients. If you dont like it dont play it, simple. Go cry under your bed
Do you realize that people are not against the 15 $ price of remastered,but against the fake promises of Blizzard employers who said that Matchmaking was going to be free?
Do we know MM isn't going to be included for 1.18 users? I realize there is that box, but can we confirm that's accurate? If it is my opinions on it are this:
1) Yes, they should have updated or told us that they were going to make MM exclusive to the purchased product. That, I think, goes without saying. Mistake by Blizz/Devs there.
2) I support paid MM. Right now, you can just spam accounts all you want and troll hard, which is done enough can legitimately start to mess up the actual evaluation of skill and the MM itself. $15 isn't insane, but it's certainly going to stop all but some crazy rich guy determined to troll from buying 15 accounts and messing around. I can't think of any other way to prevent this, and this is a solid solution in my opinion.
That in mind, I seriously hope they implement racial MMR, makes for a more accurate system and allows you to play with other races when you feel inclined.
3) Assuming paid MM is actually a correct assumption, even if #2 is their reasoning, they absolutely should have updated us. Not doing that is pretty damn bad in my opinion.
4) Unrelated, by why in god's name are people complaining about skins? o.O You can....wait for it.......turn them off! It has literally zero impact on you as a player. There are plenty of legitimate things to discuss, wasting breath on skins you'll never know exist seems ridiculous to me.
On June 30 2017 20:52 danielias wrote: $15 and you complain? You are demanding so much...I hate such clients. If you dont like it dont play it, simple. Go cry under your bed
Do you realize that people are not against the 15 $ price of remastered,but against the fake promises of Blizzard employers who said that Matchmaking was going to be free?
Too bad, Blizzard is a business and businesses need to make money.
On June 30 2017 20:52 danielias wrote: $15 and you complain? You are demanding so much...I hate such clients. If you dont like it dont play it, simple. Go cry under your bed
Do you realize that people are not against the 15 $ price of remastered,but against the fake promises of Blizzard employers who said that Matchmaking was going to be free?
Too bad, Blizzard is a business and businesses need to make money.
Yea, that's reasonable.
Again, the issue definitely isn't the $15 price tag. It's probably not even, for most, that you might have to pay for MM. It's that it was worded strongly that MM would not be tied to the price tag, and then suddenly on release it appears that could be the case.
Making money is fine, misleading customers/toying with expectations not so much. In a situation where you're making a point to be transparent this absolutely should have been addressed.
On June 30 2017 20:52 danielias wrote: $15 and you complain? You are demanding so much...I hate such clients. If you dont like it dont play it, simple. Go cry under your bed
Do you realize that people are not against the 15 $ price of remastered,but against the fake promises of Blizzard employers who said that Matchmaking was going to be free?
Do we know MM isn't going to be included for 1.18 users? I realize there is that box, but can we confirm that's accurate? If it is my opinions on it are this:
1) Yes, they should have updated or told us that they were going to make MM exclusive to the purchased product. That, I think, goes without saying. Mistake by Blizz/Devs there.
2) I support paid MM. Right now, you can just spam accounts all you want and troll hard, which is done enough can legitimately start to mess up the actual evaluation of skill and the MM itself. $15 isn't insane, but it's certainly going to stop all but some crazy rich guy determined to troll from buying 15 accounts and messing around. I can't think of any other way to prevent this, and this is a solid solution in my opinion.
That in mind, I seriously hope they implement racial MMR, makes for a more accurate system and allows you to play with other races when you feel inclined.
3) Assuming paid MM is actually a correct assumption, even if #2 is their reasoning, they absolutely should have updated us. Not doing that is pretty damn bad in my opinion.
4) Unrelated, by why in god's name are people complaining about skins? o.O You can....wait for it.......turn them off! It has literally zero impact on you as a player. There are plenty of legitimate things to discuss, wasting breath on skins you'll never know exist seems ridiculous to me.
Yeah i agree with everything you said, it's not about the 15$, it's just that it would have been nice to know what's happening a little bit earlier. I think they implied heavily that the old bw would have matchmaking as well, crossplay, etc. It's not the end of the world to pay for that and the arguments about cheaters, smurfs, etc are sound.
On June 30 2017 20:52 danielias wrote: $15 and you complain? You are demanding so much...I hate such clients. If you dont like it dont play it, simple. Go cry under your bed
Do you realize that people are not against the 15 $ price of remastered,but against the fake promises of Blizzard employers who said that Matchmaking was going to be free?
Too bad, Blizzard is a business and businesses need to make money.
You can't justify everything Blizzard does with this sentence. So,just make custom hotkeys a dlc that cost 5$ cause it's only 5$ ,and Blizzard is a business! Does it make sense?
Everyone I know bought the game because they think the new remastered art looks cool, the original game is too dated for them to bother with, the skins are cool, and they want to play the remastered campaign. Nobody I know is buying the game for matchmaking, it's just the cherry on top of the rest of the cake.
All of the complaints here have been happening within the FGC and the SC2 community for a while now. Competitive players complain about "the art" or "skins" or the fact that a single player campaign/co-op exists and the team isn't focusing solely on competitive gameplay or they complain about some tiny unimportant aspect of the game, completely failing to understand what anyone else wants from video games, fighting games, RTS, etc. People need to understand that games need to have something there for casual players in order for the company to make money, keep their servers up, and make new games/content, or the competitive players need to support it themselves in some way.
As far as I can tell, the new 1080p/4k resolution and matchmaking are some of the least important things for the larger audience. And if somehow they were, I doubt Blizzard would have ever done a remaster because there wouldn't have been a point to making then selling it. New art for all the units, remastered cinematics in the campaign, new chat features, new matchmaking features, modern resolution, ease of use, modern UI, and a few really cool yet subtle, non-distracting skins altogether are what make this worth it for the people working on the game and for the people buying the game.
The only thing I'm disappointed about is that there isn't any physical release nor a collector's edition for SC:R outside of the extremely limited Korean version (3,000 copies?). It seems a bit, I don't know, odd not to have one for the western fans who love every single CE that Blizz has put out since the early-mid 00s. However, they probably understand that the game is only very successful in Korea due its popularity as a longtime esport there, so *shrug*.
On June 30 2017 22:57 blunderfulguy wrote: All of the complaints here have been happening within the FGC and the SC2 community for a while now. Competitive players complain about "the art" or "skins" or the fact that a single player campaign/co-op exists and the team isn't focusing solely on competitive gameplay or they complain about some tiny unimportant aspect of the game, completely failing to understand what anyone else wants from video games, fighting games, RTS, etc. People need to understand that games need to have something there for casual players in order for the company to make money, keep their servers up, and make new games/content, or the competitive players need to support it themselves in some way.
What you need to understand is that selling a remake of a 20-year old game for $15 IS making money, server costs are negligible (games have provided free online play for ages, why shouldn't it be impossible nowadays?) and at the foremost WHY is spending additional money for a game you already purchased a good thing for casual gamers? Shouldn't be the most important criteria be that the game is fun to play? If I can only motivate people to play a game by offering additional microtransactioned cosmetics, there's something wrong with those people and the industry which is promoting this kind of scam.
I'm also not against that price tag, to be honest I speculated it would be way higher.
On June 30 2017 22:57 blunderfulguy wrote: All of the complaints here have been happening within the FGC and the SC2 community for a while now. Competitive players complain about "the art" or "skins" or the fact that a single player campaign/co-op exists and the team isn't focusing solely on competitive gameplay or they complain about some tiny unimportant aspect of the game, completely failing to understand what anyone else wants from video games, fighting games, RTS, etc. People need to understand that games need to have something there for casual players in order for the company to make money, keep their servers up, and make new games/content, or the competitive players need to support it themselves in some way.
What you need to understand is that selling a remake of a 20-year old game for $15 IS making money, server costs are negligible (games have provided free online play for ages, why shouldn't it be impossible nowadays?) and at the foremost WHY is spending additional money for a game you already purchased a good thing for casual gamers? Shouldn't be the most important criteria be that the game is fun to play? If I can only motivate people to play a game by offering additional microtransactioned cosmetics, there's something wrong with those people and the industry which is promoting this kind of scam.
Sorry, but if you think Blizzard is making a profit off of this project you're sorely mistaken and don't understand the cost of development like this at all. SCR sales won't even pay Pete Stillwell's salary.
On June 30 2017 22:57 blunderfulguy wrote: All of the complaints here have been happening within the FGC and the SC2 community for a while now. Competitive players complain about "the art" or "skins" or the fact that a single player campaign/co-op exists and the team isn't focusing solely on competitive gameplay or they complain about some tiny unimportant aspect of the game, completely failing to understand what anyone else wants from video games, fighting games, RTS, etc. People need to understand that games need to have something there for casual players in order for the company to make money, keep their servers up, and make new games/content, or the competitive players need to support it themselves in some way.
What you need to understand is that selling a remake of a 20-year old game for $15 IS making money, server costs are negligible (games have provided free online play for ages, why shouldn't it be impossible nowadays?) and at the foremost WHY is spending additional money for a game you already purchased a good thing for casual gamers? Shouldn't be the most important criteria be that the game is fun to play? If I can only motivate people to play a game by offering additional microtransactioned cosmetics, there's something wrong with those people and the industry which is promoting this kind of scam.
Sorry, but if you think Blizzard is making a profit off of this project you're sorely mistaken and don't understand the cost of development like this at all. SCR sales won't even pay Pete Stillwell's salary.
Sure, they're at a total loss on this one. Blizzard is literally flickin' those bills right at us. People are hilarious sometimes.
On June 30 2017 22:57 blunderfulguy wrote: All of the complaints here have been happening within the FGC and the SC2 community for a while now. Competitive players complain about "the art" or "skins" or the fact that a single player campaign/co-op exists and the team isn't focusing solely on competitive gameplay or they complain about some tiny unimportant aspect of the game, completely failing to understand what anyone else wants from video games, fighting games, RTS, etc. People need to understand that games need to have something there for casual players in order for the company to make money, keep their servers up, and make new games/content, or the competitive players need to support it themselves in some way.
What you need to understand is that selling a remake of a 20-year old game for $15 IS making money, server costs are negligible (games have provided free online play for ages, why shouldn't it be impossible nowadays?) and at the foremost WHY is spending additional money for a game you already purchased a good thing for casual gamers? Shouldn't be the most important criteria be that the game is fun to play? If I can only motivate people to play a game by offering additional microtransactioned cosmetics, there's something wrong with those people and the industry which is promoting this kind of scam.
Sorry, but if you think Blizzard is making a profit off of this project you're sorely mistaken and don't understand the cost of development like this at all. SCR sales won't even pay Pete Stillwell's salary.
Sure, they're at a total loss on this one. Blizzard is literally flickin' those bills right at us. People are hilarious sometimes.
You skipped a few too many econ classes in high school.
On June 30 2017 22:57 blunderfulguy wrote: All of the complaints here have been happening within the FGC and the SC2 community for a while now. Competitive players complain about "the art" or "skins" or the fact that a single player campaign/co-op exists and the team isn't focusing solely on competitive gameplay or they complain about some tiny unimportant aspect of the game, completely failing to understand what anyone else wants from video games, fighting games, RTS, etc. People need to understand that games need to have something there for casual players in order for the company to make money, keep their servers up, and make new games/content, or the competitive players need to support it themselves in some way.
What you need to understand is that selling a remake of a 20-year old game for $15 IS making money, server costs are negligible (games have provided free online play for ages, why shouldn't it be impossible nowadays?) and at the foremost WHY is spending additional money for a game you already purchased a good thing for casual gamers? Shouldn't be the most important criteria be that the game is fun to play? If I can only motivate people to play a game by offering additional microtransactioned cosmetics, there's something wrong with those people and the industry which is promoting this kind of scam.
Sorry, but if you think Blizzard is making a profit off of this project you're sorely mistaken and don't understand the cost of development like this at all. SCR sales won't even pay Pete Stillwell's salary.
rofl what about the new royalties from "use 1.18 for tournies and pay us royalties or we'll sue your face off?" there's a lot of money to be made
On June 30 2017 22:57 blunderfulguy wrote: All of the complaints here have been happening within the FGC and the SC2 community for a while now. Competitive players complain about "the art" or "skins" or the fact that a single player campaign/co-op exists and the team isn't focusing solely on competitive gameplay or they complain about some tiny unimportant aspect of the game, completely failing to understand what anyone else wants from video games, fighting games, RTS, etc. People need to understand that games need to have something there for casual players in order for the company to make money, keep their servers up, and make new games/content, or the competitive players need to support it themselves in some way.
What you need to understand is that selling a remake of a 20-year old game for $15 IS making money, server costs are negligible (games have provided free online play for ages, why shouldn't it be impossible nowadays?) and at the foremost WHY is spending additional money for a game you already purchased a good thing for casual gamers? Shouldn't be the most important criteria be that the game is fun to play? If I can only motivate people to play a game by offering additional microtransactioned cosmetics, there's something wrong with those people and the industry which is promoting this kind of scam.
Sorry, but if you think Blizzard is making a profit off of this project you're sorely mistaken and don't understand the cost of development like this at all. SCR sales won't even pay Pete Stillwell's salary.
rofl what about the new royalties from "use 1.18 for tournies and pay us royalties or we'll sue your face off?" there's a lot of money to be made
How much do you think -just- the dev team for SCR makes?
How much do you think they're going to make in sales from SC:R?
How much do you think these fantasy fiction royalties you've just conjured up out of thin air will make for Blizzard?
The numbers don't add up. They are almost certainly running this project as a loss leader.
On June 30 2017 22:57 blunderfulguy wrote: All of the complaints here have been happening within the FGC and the SC2 community for a while now. Competitive players complain about "the art" or "skins" or the fact that a single player campaign/co-op exists and the team isn't focusing solely on competitive gameplay or they complain about some tiny unimportant aspect of the game, completely failing to understand what anyone else wants from video games, fighting games, RTS, etc. People need to understand that games need to have something there for casual players in order for the company to make money, keep their servers up, and make new games/content, or the competitive players need to support it themselves in some way.
What you need to understand is that selling a remake of a 20-year old game for $15 IS making money, server costs are negligible (games have provided free online play for ages, why shouldn't it be impossible nowadays?) and at the foremost WHY is spending additional money for a game you already purchased a good thing for casual gamers? Shouldn't be the most important criteria be that the game is fun to play? If I can only motivate people to play a game by offering additional microtransactioned cosmetics, there's something wrong with those people and the industry which is promoting this kind of scam.
Sorry, but if you think Blizzard is making a profit off of this project you're sorely mistaken and don't understand the cost of development like this at all. SCR sales won't even pay Pete Stillwell's salary.
Sure, they're at a total loss on this one. Blizzard is literally flickin' those bills right at us. People are hilarious sometimes.
Go back to high school. You skipped a few too many classes.
Continously hilarious. How much do you think did the development cost? From the interview I got the number of 18 months and that they had a small team of about 5 people. lets say, that's about 100k per year for Stilwell (and that's a favorable estimate) and lets say 200k for the engineers altogether. So roughly 450k for the 18 months for personell, plus marketing, let's say it cost them roughly half a million (probably less). Now, let's see, if they sell 100.000 units, and I honestly don't see why they won't, especially considering BW's popularity in Korea, they roughly made 1 million dollars profit. So, what's your estimate?
On June 30 2017 22:57 blunderfulguy wrote: All of the complaints here have been happening within the FGC and the SC2 community for a while now. Competitive players complain about "the art" or "skins" or the fact that a single player campaign/co-op exists and the team isn't focusing solely on competitive gameplay or they complain about some tiny unimportant aspect of the game, completely failing to understand what anyone else wants from video games, fighting games, RTS, etc. People need to understand that games need to have something there for casual players in order for the company to make money, keep their servers up, and make new games/content, or the competitive players need to support it themselves in some way.
What you need to understand is that selling a remake of a 20-year old game for $15 IS making money, server costs are negligible (games have provided free online play for ages, why shouldn't it be impossible nowadays?) and at the foremost WHY is spending additional money for a game you already purchased a good thing for casual gamers? Shouldn't be the most important criteria be that the game is fun to play? If I can only motivate people to play a game by offering additional microtransactioned cosmetics, there's something wrong with those people and the industry which is promoting this kind of scam.
Sorry, but if you think Blizzard is making a profit off of this project you're sorely mistaken and don't understand the cost of development like this at all. SCR sales won't even pay Pete Stillwell's salary.
rofl what about the new royalties from "use 1.18 for tournies and pay us royalties or we'll sue your face off?" there's a lot of money to be made
How much do you think -just- the dev team for SCR makes?
How much do you think they're going to make in sales from SC:R?
How much do you think these fantasy fiction royalties you've just conjured up out of thin air will make for Blizzard?
The numbers don't add up. They are almost certainly running this project as a loss leader.
i can almost guarantee you that they greenlit the project solely for the royalties..
On June 30 2017 22:57 blunderfulguy wrote: All of the complaints here have been happening within the FGC and the SC2 community for a while now. Competitive players complain about "the art" or "skins" or the fact that a single player campaign/co-op exists and the team isn't focusing solely on competitive gameplay or they complain about some tiny unimportant aspect of the game, completely failing to understand what anyone else wants from video games, fighting games, RTS, etc. People need to understand that games need to have something there for casual players in order for the company to make money, keep their servers up, and make new games/content, or the competitive players need to support it themselves in some way.
What you need to understand is that selling a remake of a 20-year old game for $15 IS making money, server costs are negligible (games have provided free online play for ages, why shouldn't it be impossible nowadays?) and at the foremost WHY is spending additional money for a game you already purchased a good thing for casual gamers? Shouldn't be the most important criteria be that the game is fun to play? If I can only motivate people to play a game by offering additional microtransactioned cosmetics, there's something wrong with those people and the industry which is promoting this kind of scam.
Sorry, but if you think Blizzard is making a profit off of this project you're sorely mistaken and don't understand the cost of development like this at all. SCR sales won't even pay Pete Stillwell's salary.
Sure, they're at a total loss on this one. Blizzard is literally flickin' those bills right at us. People are hilarious sometimes.
Go back to high school. You skipped a few too many classes.
Continously hilarious. How much do you think did the development cost? From the interview I got the number of 18 months and that they had a small team of about 5 people. lets say, that's about 100k per year for Stilwell (and that's a favorable estimate) and lets say 200k for the engineers altogether. So roughly 450k for the 18 months for personell, plus marketing, let's say it cost them roughly half a million (probably less). Now, let's see, if they sell 100.000 units, and I honestly don't see why they won't, especially considering BW's popularity in Korea, they roughly made 1 million dollars profit. So, what's your estimate?
You have no idea the kinds of expenses that are required to produce a project like this. I couldn't even begin to express how terrible your estimate is but you're off by multiples of what this would take.
On June 30 2017 22:57 blunderfulguy wrote: All of the complaints here have been happening within the FGC and the SC2 community for a while now. Competitive players complain about "the art" or "skins" or the fact that a single player campaign/co-op exists and the team isn't focusing solely on competitive gameplay or they complain about some tiny unimportant aspect of the game, completely failing to understand what anyone else wants from video games, fighting games, RTS, etc. People need to understand that games need to have something there for casual players in order for the company to make money, keep their servers up, and make new games/content, or the competitive players need to support it themselves in some way.
What you need to understand is that selling a remake of a 20-year old game for $15 IS making money, server costs are negligible (games have provided free online play for ages, why shouldn't it be impossible nowadays?) and at the foremost WHY is spending additional money for a game you already purchased a good thing for casual gamers? Shouldn't be the most important criteria be that the game is fun to play? If I can only motivate people to play a game by offering additional microtransactioned cosmetics, there's something wrong with those people and the industry which is promoting this kind of scam.
Sorry, but if you think Blizzard is making a profit off of this project you're sorely mistaken and don't understand the cost of development like this at all. SCR sales won't even pay Pete Stillwell's salary.
Sure, they're at a total loss on this one. Blizzard is literally flickin' those bills right at us. People are hilarious sometimes.
Go back to high school. You skipped a few too many classes.
Continously hilarious. How much do you think did the development cost? From the interview I got the number of 18 months and that they had a small team of about 5 people. lets say, that's about 100k per year for Stilwell (and that's a favorable estimate) and lets say 200k for the engineers altogether. So roughly 450k for the 18 months for personell, plus marketing, let's say it cost them roughly half a million (probably less). Now, let's see, if they sell 100.000 units, and I honestly don't see why they won't, especially considering BW's popularity in Korea, they roughly made 1 million dollars profit. So, what's your estimate?
You have no idea the kinds of expenses that are required to produce a project like this. I couldn't even begin to express how terrible your estimate is but you're off by multiples of what this would take.
Oh then please enlighten me with your knowledge, I'd really like to learn something.
On June 30 2017 22:57 blunderfulguy wrote: All of the complaints here have been happening within the FGC and the SC2 community for a while now. Competitive players complain about "the art" or "skins" or the fact that a single player campaign/co-op exists and the team isn't focusing solely on competitive gameplay or they complain about some tiny unimportant aspect of the game, completely failing to understand what anyone else wants from video games, fighting games, RTS, etc. People need to understand that games need to have something there for casual players in order for the company to make money, keep their servers up, and make new games/content, or the competitive players need to support it themselves in some way.
What you need to understand is that selling a remake of a 20-year old game for $15 IS making money, server costs are negligible (games have provided free online play for ages, why shouldn't it be impossible nowadays?) and at the foremost WHY is spending additional money for a game you already purchased a good thing for casual gamers? Shouldn't be the most important criteria be that the game is fun to play? If I can only motivate people to play a game by offering additional microtransactioned cosmetics, there's something wrong with those people and the industry which is promoting this kind of scam.
Sorry, but if you think Blizzard is making a profit off of this project you're sorely mistaken and don't understand the cost of development like this at all. SCR sales won't even pay Pete Stillwell's salary.
Sure, they're at a total loss on this one. Blizzard is literally flickin' those bills right at us. People are hilarious sometimes.
Go back to high school. You skipped a few too many classes.
Continously hilarious. How much do you think did the development cost? From the interview I got the number of 18 months and that they had a small team of about 5 people. lets say, that's about 100k per year for Stilwell (and that's a favorable estimate) and lets say 200k for the engineers altogether. So roughly 450k for the 18 months for personell, plus marketing, let's say it cost them roughly half a million (probably less). Now, let's see, if they sell 100.000 units, and I honestly don't see why they won't, especially considering BW's popularity in Korea, they roughly made 1 million dollars profit. So, what's your estimate?
You have no idea the kinds of expenses that are required to produce a project like this. I couldn't even begin to express how terrible your estimate is but you're off by multiples of what this would take.
i mean they could have outsourced the sprites to deviant artists for free and gotten better results, not my fault that they paid "artists" for their "gui" and "sprites"
Starcraft is a PRESTIGE BRAND for ATVI. They keep Starcraft around for the rub.. for the prestige...
why do you think Kotick bought the Activision brand? all that was left of Activision was the brand. He bought it for the prestige. Kotick paid 90 million bucks for the old memories of River Raid and Pitfall.
in the last 7 years i'd say SC2 has represented less than 2% of ATVI's income. Kotick keeps funding SC for the same reasons he bought Activision. ATVI is paying for the old memories.
don't worry guys.. ATVI knows what they are doing.
On June 30 2017 22:57 blunderfulguy wrote: All of the complaints here have been happening within the FGC and the SC2 community for a while now. Competitive players complain about "the art" or "skins" or the fact that a single player campaign/co-op exists and the team isn't focusing solely on competitive gameplay or they complain about some tiny unimportant aspect of the game, completely failing to understand what anyone else wants from video games, fighting games, RTS, etc. People need to understand that games need to have something there for casual players in order for the company to make money, keep their servers up, and make new games/content, or the competitive players need to support it themselves in some way.
What you need to understand is that selling a remake of a 20-year old game for $15 IS making money, server costs are negligible (games have provided free online play for ages, why shouldn't it be impossible nowadays?) and at the foremost WHY is spending additional money for a game you already purchased a good thing for casual gamers? Shouldn't be the most important criteria be that the game is fun to play? If I can only motivate people to play a game by offering additional microtransactioned cosmetics, there's something wrong with those people and the industry which is promoting this kind of scam.
Sorry, but if you think Blizzard is making a profit off of this project you're sorely mistaken and don't understand the cost of development like this at all. SCR sales won't even pay Pete Stillwell's salary.
Sure, they're at a total loss on this one. Blizzard is literally flickin' those bills right at us. People are hilarious sometimes.
Go back to high school. You skipped a few too many classes.
Continously hilarious. How much do you think did the development cost? From the interview I got the number of 18 months and that they had a small team of about 5 people. lets say, that's about 100k per year for Stilwell (and that's a favorable estimate) and lets say 200k for the engineers altogether. So roughly 450k for the 18 months for personell, plus marketing, let's say it cost them roughly half a million (probably less). Now, let's see, if they sell 100.000 units, and I honestly don't see why they won't, especially considering BW's popularity in Korea, they roughly made 1 million dollars profit. So, what's your estimate?
You have no idea the kinds of expenses that are required to produce a project like this. I couldn't even begin to express how terrible your estimate is but you're off by multiples of what this would take.
i mean they could have outsourced the sprites to deviant artists for free and gotten better results, not my fault that they paid "artists" for their "gui" and "sprites"
Why don't you go back to liquid legends if all you're gonna do here is bitch about literally everything? We get it, you're way smarter and cooler than Blizzard and BW is horrible and everything sucks. Nobody's keeping you here, and CERTAINLY nobody wants to hear the nonstop bitching and moaning.
On June 30 2017 22:57 blunderfulguy wrote: All of the complaints here have been happening within the FGC and the SC2 community for a while now. Competitive players complain about "the art" or "skins" or the fact that a single player campaign/co-op exists and the team isn't focusing solely on competitive gameplay or they complain about some tiny unimportant aspect of the game, completely failing to understand what anyone else wants from video games, fighting games, RTS, etc. People need to understand that games need to have something there for casual players in order for the company to make money, keep their servers up, and make new games/content, or the competitive players need to support it themselves in some way.
What you need to understand is that selling a remake of a 20-year old game for $15 IS making money, server costs are negligible (games have provided free online play for ages, why shouldn't it be impossible nowadays?) and at the foremost WHY is spending additional money for a game you already purchased a good thing for casual gamers? Shouldn't be the most important criteria be that the game is fun to play? If I can only motivate people to play a game by offering additional microtransactioned cosmetics, there's something wrong with those people and the industry which is promoting this kind of scam.
Sorry, but if you think Blizzard is making a profit off of this project you're sorely mistaken and don't understand the cost of development like this at all. SCR sales won't even pay Pete Stillwell's salary.
Sure, they're at a total loss on this one. Blizzard is literally flickin' those bills right at us. People are hilarious sometimes.
Go back to high school. You skipped a few too many classes.
Continously hilarious. How much do you think did the development cost? From the interview I got the number of 18 months and that they had a small team of about 5 people. lets say, that's about 100k per year for Stilwell (and that's a favorable estimate) and lets say 200k for the engineers altogether. So roughly 450k for the 18 months for personell, plus marketing, let's say it cost them roughly half a million (probably less). Now, let's see, if they sell 100.000 units, and I honestly don't see why they won't, especially considering BW's popularity in Korea, they roughly made 1 million dollars profit. So, what's your estimate?
You have no idea the kinds of expenses that are required to produce a project like this. I couldn't even begin to express how terrible your estimate is but you're off by multiples of what this would take.
i mean they could have outsourced the sprites to deviant artists for free and gotten better results, not my fault that they paid "artists" for their "gui" and "sprites"
Why don't you go back to liquid legends if all you're gonna do here is bitch about literally everything? We get it, you're way smarter and cooler than Blizzard and BW is horrible and everything sucks. Nobody's keeping you here, and CERTAINLY nobody wants to hear the nonstop bitching and moaning.
even if Blizzard makes a small profit it has zero impact on the ATVI balance sheet. zero. because of ATVI's massive size and financial power this game has zero to do with money. .. either in terms of expenses.. or revenue.
Blizzard and ATVI are paying for the revival of old memories and greasing the skids to get players 30+ to spend even more money on their stuff as they all hit their prime earning years.
so all those millions of Brood War lovers can sit back and say .. "wow, no one honours my love of games more than Blizzard". "I think I'll buy that $60 Overwatch expansion pack after all."
On June 30 2017 23:56 JimmyJRaynor wrote: even if Blizzard makes a small profit it has zero impact on the ATVI balance sheet. zero. because of ATVI's massive size and financial power this game has zero to do with money. .. either in terms of expenses.. or revenue.
Nevertheless it would be quite interesting to have some actual guesses on the expenses from someone who apparently knows way more about that than I do, yet noone seems to be interested in sharing their wisdom .
On June 30 2017 23:56 JimmyJRaynor wrote: even if Blizzard makes a small profit it has zero impact on the ATVI balance sheet. zero. because of ATVI's massive size and financial power this game has zero to do with money. .. either in terms of expenses.. or revenue.
Nevertheless it would be quite interesting to have some actual guesses on the expenses from someone who apparently knows way more about that than I do, yet noone seems to be interested in sharing their wisdom .
I also don't argue with flat earthers because their assumptions are so preposterous it's like arguing with a bowl of wheat.
On June 30 2017 23:56 JimmyJRaynor wrote: even if Blizzard makes a small profit it has zero impact on the ATVI balance sheet. zero. because of ATVI's massive size and financial power this game has zero to do with money. .. either in terms of expenses.. or revenue.
Nevertheless it would be quite interesting to have some actual guesses on the expenses from someone who apparently knows way more about that than I do, yet noone seems to be interested in sharing their wisdom .
I also don't argue with flat earthers because their assumptions are so preposterous it's like arguing with a bowl of wheat.
If you don't have anything useful to contribute, I'd say you sit back a bit with your trolling, I've heard no estimates from you, either. And by the way, how's your German?
to be clear, i'm pumped for this game and i can't wait to play the campaign.
SC1 won't install on my new machine and i'm too lazy to figure out how to trick it into installing correctly. It'll be nice to have an easy to install SC1.
Thanks for making this game Blizzard.... and i'm sure you'll bleed me dry of much more cash on your projects designed to make multi-billions.
On July 01 2017 00:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote: to be clear, i'm pumped for this game and i can't wait to play the campaign.
SC1 won't install on my new machine and i'm too lazy to figure out how to trick it into installing correctly. It'll be nice to have an easy to install SC1.
Thanks for making this game Blizzard.... and i'm sure you'll bleed me dry of much more cash on your projects designed to make multi-billions.
i just hope i can toggle off those ugly skins, because i think i would just rage quit if i saw one of them in a 1v1.. i would also probably drone rush a teammate in a 2:2 헌터 예쁜여자만#w if she had it because fuck playing with people that have bad taste in buildings
On July 01 2017 00:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote: to be clear, i'm pumped for this game and i can't wait to play the campaign.
SC1 won't install on my new machine and i'm too lazy to figure out how to trick it into installing correctly. It'll be nice to have an easy to install SC1.
Thanks for making this game Blizzard.... and i'm sure you'll bleed me dry of much more cash on your projects designed to make multi-billions.
I replayed the campaign when SC:BW became free but I will do it again with SC:R to see the new between mission stuff they added.
On June 30 2017 20:52 danielias wrote: $15 and you complain? You are demanding so much...I hate such clients. If you dont like it dont play it, simple. Go cry under your bed
Do you realize that people are not against the 15 $ price of remastered,but against the fake promises of Blizzard employers who said that Matchmaking was going to be free?
Too bad, Blizzard is a business and businesses need to make money.
You can't justify everything Blizzard does with this sentence. So,just make custom hotkeys a dlc that cost 5$ cause it's only 5$ ,and Blizzard is a business! Does it make sense?
Yeah sure they can do that why not. Look at it this way, Blizzard has no obligation whatsoever to remake BW, they are doing BW fans a HUGE service by remaking this game and so far they are doing an excellent job. BW will be very popular again cause of this. Just move on and pay the $15.
On June 30 2017 18:21 Arrian wrote: The visual upgrade is nice, but not why people are coming. A larger player base + mmaking is the only real draw here.
For those two things alone, a $15 price point might seem pretty unreasonable to some when you get to the bottom of it. SCR is being released in 2017 into a market flooded with so many FTP multiplayer-only games, and they're asking for money for their game goes the thinking.
Of course, I don't subscribe that thinking at all. SC is the greatest strategy game of all time, so yeah, they're gonna get my money, and if you're complaining about $15 you can just play it without the graphical update or one of the many, many other FTP multiplayer only games out there.
It's not like Age of Empires 2 HD sold 4 million copies when it was 5 dollars more or anything.
EDIT: Found that earlier in the thread someone mentioned the source of the image is the bottom of this page: https://starcraft.com/en-us/ Does that mean that Blizzard his flipped on this issue? Went back on their blue-word?
EDIT: Found that earlier in the thread someone mentioned the source of the image is the bottom of this page: https://starcraft.com/en-us/ Does that mean that Blizzard his flipped on this issue? Went back on their blue-word?
EDIT: Found that earlier in the thread someone mentioned the source of the image is the bottom of this page: https://starcraft.com/en-us/ Does that mean that Blizzard his flipped on this issue? Went back on their blue-word?
as always, nobody owes you anything and changing business decisions during development is their prerogative.
On June 30 2017 20:52 danielias wrote: $15 and you complain? You are demanding so much...I hate such clients. If you dont like it dont play it, simple. Go cry under your bed
Do you realize that people are not against the 15 $ price of remastered,but against the fake promises of Blizzard employers who said that Matchmaking was going to be free?
Too bad, Blizzard is a business and businesses need to make money.
You can't justify everything Blizzard does with this sentence. So,just make custom hotkeys a dlc that cost 5$ cause it's only 5$ ,and Blizzard is a business! Does it make sense?
This post is so misguided. If you want to make as much profit as possible, which is all a corporation is about, you want to take as much money from your customers as possible, without making your customers feel that they got robbed.
Asking 5$ dollar for custom hotkeys? Are you really saying that is the optimal strategy for Blizzard to make as much profit as possible? But that they aren't doing it because they are a charity, not a corporation?
A corporation like Blizzard isn't going out of their way to piss off their own customers, because, their customers aren't obligated to buy their products. Well, in gaming, gamers kind of feel they are. The ones that complain the most online are the first ones to vote with their wallets. And with their wallets, they vote completely against any of the whining they put online.
Anyway, from the recent movies, you can clearly see that pathing is different. Look at the unit collision. Units get much closer to each other than originally. The game is going to feel completely different. Mabye better, probably worse, but different for sure. It is annoying that after playing for 20 years, the developer comes in, changing things in arbitrary ways, puts in graphics you don't need or care about, and forces you to completely change how you use the keyboard to control the game.
Flash will need to completely throw out his keyboard habits and learn a completely new hotkey layout to be competitive. Why? Because of this delusional view that 4K re-skinning, matchmaking, and WSAD hotkeys is somehow going to pull in disgruntled SC2 players, LoL casuals and new players, and somehow revitalize the scene so it can become what it was before Blizzard came in and destroyed professional televised SC BW (because it was competing with their new game, SC2).
The only good thing that come out of this is Blizzard deciding that they aren't going to get much more new SC2 sales and that killing SC2 for the sake of SC:R is going to be profitable. Yes. I am spiteful.
Anyway, Blizzard is in trouble. Their community invented MOBA. They actively worked against MOBA, and now LoL is the biggest game out there. Then they turned back on it, but they were forced to reconsider and then they tried to get a tiny piece of the market with their own game, but it is a marginal game. Their community invented eSports. They turned their back on it, but then they reconsidered but they were forced to reconsider and then they tried to get a tiny piece of the market with their own game. And paradoxically, Blizzard made Wizards look like Blizzard by making Hearthstone and showing that their implementation is much much better than the trashy piece of software that is MTGO.
Anyway, with WoW eventually shrinking to nothing, Blizzard being so bloated with the overhead they once needed for maximal WoW profits, management and investor pressures not allowing for the rational decision to downsize Blizzard to what they were before WoW, if they don't quickly come up with something as successful and profitable as WoW, they won't survive.
The way gaming works, you can have a well-liked game and get decent sales. Then you can have a sequel and you coast on previous success. It can be bad, but profitable. With SC2 and D3 being what they were, the number of blind sales for D4 or WC4 is not going to be as high as the number of blind sales for SC2 or D3. And I am not talking esports-wise, competitive play-oriented. Just take gameplay innovation and story-telling as the main qualities of a good new game.
When Blizzard releases their next big title, we will talk.
And going back to SC:R. All it seems to mean so far, is less people in iccup playing 1.16. But no, we will be forced to play a different implementation of the game, where we can't play with 90% of the people online, because we decided to vote with our wallets, and vote the right way.
Anyway, from the recent movies, you can clearly see that pathing is different. Look at the unit collision. Units get much closer to each other than originally. The game is going to feel completely different. Mabye better, probably worse, but different for sure. It is annoying that after playing for 20 years, the developer comes in, changing things in arbitrary ways, puts in graphics you don't need or care about, and forces you to completely change how you use the keyboard to control the game.
What? Where do you see that? They haven't changed any unit models, just textures.
Flash will need to completely throw out his keyboard habits and learn a completely new hotkey layout to be competitive. Why? Because of this delusional view that 4K re-skinning, matchmaking, and WSAD hotkeys is somehow going to pull in disgruntled SC2 players, LoL casuals and new players, and somehow revitalize the scene so it can become what it was before Blizzard came in and destroyed professional televised SC BW (because it was competing with their new game, SC2).
I think Flash will be fine without your wild assumptions, to be honest.
Anyway, Blizzard is in trouble. Their community invented MOBA. They actively worked against MOBA, and now LoL is the biggest game out there. Then they turned back on it, but they were forced to reconsider and then they tried to get a tiny piece of the market with their own game, but it is a marginal game. Their community invented eSports. They turned their back on it, but then they reconsidered but they were forced to reconsider and then they tried to get a tiny piece of the market with their own game. And paradoxically, Blizzard made Wizards look like Blizzard by making Hearthstone and showing that their implementation is much much better than the trashy piece of software that is MTGO.
Anyway, with WoW eventually shrinking to nothing, Blizzard being so bloated with the overhead they once needed for maximal WoW profits, management and investor pressures not allowing for the rational decision to downsize Blizzard to what they were before WoW, if they don't quickly come up with something as successful and profitable as WoW, they won't survive.
Do you have some quarterly reports that are different from the ones they publish that say that somehow ATVB is doing poorly? At the top of this post you lambast the OP because he had the nerve to say companies should do something other than chase profit, yet you casually disregard that their decisions are in aggregate very profitable and they're doing just fine.
EDIT: Found that earlier in the thread someone mentioned the source of the image is the bottom of this page: https://starcraft.com/en-us/ Does that mean that Blizzard his flipped on this issue? Went back on their blue-word?
The source is at the bottom of Starcraft.com...
as i wrote in the edit(ellipses)
On July 01 2017 01:19 ldv wrote: as always, nobody owes you anything and changing business decisions during development is their prerogative.
Excuse me but im VERY entitled and since my mommy and daddy always treated me like a princess i deserve and am therefore owed EVERYTHING that i feel entitled to! I believe I made this very clear in my original post. In all seriousness though developers shouldn't be making public statements on undecided issues.
I think matchmaking should be exclusive to SC:R to deter smurfs and cheaters. $15USD is so irrelevant it's not even much of a deterrent, but it's better than nothing.
Anyway, from the recent movies, you can clearly see that pathing is different. Look at the unit collision. Units get much closer to each other than originally. The game is going to feel completely different. Mabye better, probably worse, but different for sure. It is annoying that after playing for 20 years, the developer comes in, changing things in arbitrary ways, puts in graphics you don't need or care about, and forces you to completely change how you use the keyboard to control the game.
What? Where do you see that? They haven't changed any unit models, just textures.
Flash will need to completely throw out his keyboard habits and learn a completely new hotkey layout to be competitive. Why? Because of this delusional view that 4K re-skinning, matchmaking, and WSAD hotkeys is somehow going to pull in disgruntled SC2 players, LoL casuals and new players, and somehow revitalize the scene so it can become what it was before Blizzard came in and destroyed professional televised SC BW (because it was competing with their new game, SC2).
I think Flash will be fine without your wild assumptions, to be honest.
Anyway, Blizzard is in trouble. Their community invented MOBA. They actively worked against MOBA, and now LoL is the biggest game out there. Then they turned back on it, but they were forced to reconsider and then they tried to get a tiny piece of the market with their own game, but it is a marginal game. Their community invented eSports. They turned their back on it, but then they reconsidered but they were forced to reconsider and then they tried to get a tiny piece of the market with their own game. And paradoxically, Blizzard made Wizards look like Blizzard by making Hearthstone and showing that their implementation is much much better than the trashy piece of software that is MTGO.
Anyway, with WoW eventually shrinking to nothing, Blizzard being so bloated with the overhead they once needed for maximal WoW profits, management and investor pressures not allowing for the rational decision to downsize Blizzard to what they were before WoW, if they don't quickly come up with something as successful and profitable as WoW, they won't survive.
Do you have some quarterly reports that are different from the ones they publish that say that somehow ATVB is doing poorly? At the top of this post you lambast the OP because he had the nerve to say companies should do something other than chase profit, yet you casually disregard that their decisions are in aggregate very profitable and they're doing just fine.
On July 01 2017 01:56 Endymion wrote: those saying it will deter smurfers, how do you know it will be locked to a single account? it's not that way on the 1.18 beta
It's using the blizzard client so I'd assume you might have to log in through the 2.0 account
EDIT: Found that earlier in the thread someone mentioned the source of the image is the bottom of this page: https://starcraft.com/en-us/ Does that mean that Blizzard his flipped on this issue? Went back on their blue-word?
as always, nobody owes you anything and changing business decisions during development is their prerogative.
It's perfectly reasonable to ask why previously announced features have been changed. Also, whether or not anyone 'owes' anyone else is completely irrelevant to what he said, except for you to wrongly portray him as entitled to try and discredit his perfectly reasonable question.
EDIT: Found that earlier in the thread someone mentioned the source of the image is the bottom of this page: https://starcraft.com/en-us/ Does that mean that Blizzard his flipped on this issue? Went back on their blue-word?
as always, nobody owes you anything and changing business decisions during development is their prerogative.
It's perfectly reasonable to ask why previously announced features have been changed. Also, whether or not anyone 'owes' anyone else is completely irrelevant to what he said, except for you to wrongly portray him as entitled to try and discredit his perfectly reasonable question.
I don't think it is that reasonable, talking about 'promises' and 'going back on their word' implies heavily that the poster thinks they are owed the things that were previously discussed as part of some deal that was made.
EDIT: Found that earlier in the thread someone mentioned the source of the image is the bottom of this page: https://starcraft.com/en-us/ Does that mean that Blizzard his flipped on this issue? Went back on their blue-word?
as always, nobody owes you anything and changing business decisions during development is their prerogative.
It's perfectly reasonable to ask why previously announced features have been changed. Also, whether or not anyone 'owes' anyone else is completely irrelevant to what he said, except for you to wrongly portray him as entitled to try and discredit his perfectly reasonable question.
I don't think it is that reasonable, talking about 'promises' and 'going back on their word' implies heavily that the poster thinks they are owed the things that were previously discussed as part of some deal that was made.
Blizz doesn't let their guys make on the record statements like that casually. A bluepost is an official statement, and asking why they changed their official stance is a totally normal part of the developer-community conversation. You're reading too deeply into "going back" and adding a "promises" that he didn't even say.
EDIT: Found that earlier in the thread someone mentioned the source of the image is the bottom of this page: https://starcraft.com/en-us/ Does that mean that Blizzard his flipped on this issue? Went back on their blue-word?
as always, nobody owes you anything and changing business decisions during development is their prerogative.
It's perfectly reasonable to ask why previously announced features have been changed. Also, whether or not anyone 'owes' anyone else is completely irrelevant to what he said, except for you to wrongly portray him as entitled to try and discredit his perfectly reasonable question.
I don't think it is that reasonable, talking about 'promises' and 'going back on their word' implies heavily that the poster thinks they are owed the things that were previously discussed as part of some deal that was made.
Blizz doesn't let their guys make on the record statements like that casually. A bluepost is an official statement, and asking why they changed their official stance is a totally normal part of the developer-community conversation. You're reading too deeply into "going back" and adding a "promises" that he didn't even say.
I probably am reading too heavily into what this poster is saying, but if I am, it's because it's colored by the thousands of voices asking the same thing in more explicit terms.
On July 01 2017 01:56 Endymion wrote: those saying it will deter smurfers, how do you know it will be locked to a single account? it's not that way on the 1.18 beta
It's using the blizzard client so I'd assume you might have to log in through the 2.0 account
you could just log in, start the game, and be able to make new accounts like normal though. it doesn't make sense since that's how you do it on 1.18 right now, and the servers are meant to be mixed? like, you can't have only remastered players being confined to battlenet.20 while normal 1.18 users aren't required to use a linked bnet account (unless they intend to gut their entire system and force normal 1.18 users to link a bnet account)
On July 01 2017 00:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote: to be clear, i'm pumped for this game and i can't wait to play the campaign. SC1 won't install on my new machine and i'm too lazy to figure out how to trick it into installing correctly. It'll be nice to have an easy to install SC1. Thanks for making this game Blizzard.... and i'm sure you'll bleed me dry of much more cash on your projects designed to make multi-billions.
I replayed the campaign when SC:BW became free but I will do it again with SC:R to see the new between mission stuff they added.
that Mengsk speech after the "Hammer Falls" is the greatest speech in the history of video games! "....we shall win through... no matter the cost!"
EDIT: Found that earlier in the thread someone mentioned the source of the image is the bottom of this page: https://starcraft.com/en-us/ Does that mean that Blizzard his flipped on this issue? Went back on their blue-word?
as always, nobody owes you anything and changing business decisions during development is their prerogative.
It's perfectly reasonable to ask why previously announced features have been changed. Also, whether or not anyone 'owes' anyone else is completely irrelevant to what he said, except for you to wrongly portray him as entitled to try and discredit his perfectly reasonable question.
I don't think it is that reasonable, talking about 'promises' and 'going back on their word' implies heavily that the poster thinks they are owed the things that were previously discussed as part of some deal that was made.
Blizz doesn't let their guys make on the record statements like that casually. A bluepost is an official statement, and asking why they changed their official stance is a totally normal part of the developer-community conversation. You're reading too deeply into "going back" and adding a "promises" that he didn't even say.
Blizz altered their stance on how skins would be earned during seasonal events in Overwatch which generated increased motivation to buy loot boxes outright. The last few years I find Blizzard mucks up occasionally on these tiny details. Blizzard used to never get even the smallest of details wrong.
its not like i'm super pissed off and never going to buy another Blizzard game .. but it does lower my view of Blizzard ever so slightly.
On June 30 2017 22:57 blunderfulguy wrote: All of the complaints here have been happening within the FGC and the SC2 community for a while now. Competitive players complain about "the art" or "skins" or the fact that a single player campaign/co-op exists and the team isn't focusing solely on competitive gameplay or they complain about some tiny unimportant aspect of the game, completely failing to understand what anyone else wants from video games, fighting games, RTS, etc. People need to understand that games need to have something there for casual players in order for the company to make money, keep their servers up, and make new games/content, or the competitive players need to support it themselves in some way.
What you need to understand is that selling a remake of a 20-year old game for $15 IS making money, server costs are negligible (games have provided free online play for ages, why shouldn't it be impossible nowadays?) and at the foremost WHY is spending additional money for a game you already purchased a good thing for casual gamers? Shouldn't be the most important criteria be that the game is fun to play? If I can only motivate people to play a game by offering additional microtransactioned cosmetics, there's something wrong with those people and the industry which is promoting this kind of scam.
Sorry, but if you think Blizzard is making a profit off of this project you're sorely mistaken and don't understand the cost of development like this at all. SCR sales won't even pay Pete Stillwell's salary.
Sure, they're at a total loss on this one. Blizzard is literally flickin' those bills right at us. People are hilarious sometimes.
Go back to high school. You skipped a few too many classes.
Continously hilarious. How much do you think did the development cost? From the interview I got the number of 18 months and that they had a small team of about 5 people. lets say, that's about 100k per year for Stilwell (and that's a favorable estimate) and lets say 200k for the engineers altogether. So roughly 450k for the 18 months for personell, plus marketing, let's say it cost them roughly half a million (probably less). Now, let's see, if they sell 100.000 units, and I honestly don't see why they won't, especially considering BW's popularity in Korea, they roughly made 1 million dollars profit. So, what's your estimate?
You have no idea how much software engineers make in California. They've definitely spent over a million on development costs already
On June 30 2017 20:52 danielias wrote: $15 and you complain? You are demanding so much...I hate such clients. If you dont like it dont play it, simple. Go cry under your bed
Do you realize that people are not against the 15 $ price of remastered,but against the fake promises of Blizzard employers who said that Matchmaking was going to be free?
You dont understand how bussiness works. Sometimes you have to make changes/adjust along the way.
Can you be more grateful? They need support too. I mean stop being suck a jerk. If you are disapoitment or sad, keep that to your self and dont buy it. period.
On June 30 2017 20:52 danielias wrote: $15 and you complain? You are demanding so much...I hate such clients. If you dont like it dont play it, simple. Go cry under your bed
I don't like being lied to. Price of the game doesn't matter, it's about principles. I mean that's why we pretty much can't have nice games in 2017 because of consumers like you who are happy with unfinished games and companies delivering those products in pre-alpha state and in-game shops for cosmetic addons. Too bad blizzard joined this horrible trend in the industry. I really really hope it's just those 3 skins and no more micro-in game purchases... but let's be real - that's just my wishful thinking...
Do you have idea how much work is involved in projects like this? Humans like you are the reason why this planet is fuck up.
That mentality of "give me give me" and what you give to others? You dont know how things work, like a child.
On July 01 2017 00:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote: to be clear, i'm pumped for this game and i can't wait to play the campaign. SC1 won't install on my new machine and i'm too lazy to figure out how to trick it into installing correctly. It'll be nice to have an easy to install SC1. Thanks for making this game Blizzard.... and i'm sure you'll bleed me dry of much more cash on your projects designed to make multi-billions.
I replayed the campaign when SC:BW became free but I will do it again with SC:R to see the new between mission stuff they added.
that Mengsk speech after the "Hammer Falls" is the greatest speech in the history of video games! "....we shall win through... no matter the cost!"
On July 01 2017 01:56 Endymion wrote: those saying it will deter smurfers, how do you know it will be locked to a single account? it's not that way on the 1.18 beta
It's using the blizzard client so I'd assume you might have to log in through the 2.0 account
you could just log in, start the game, and be able to make new accounts like normal though. it doesn't make sense since that's how you do it on 1.18 right now, and the servers are meant to be mixed? like, you can't have only remastered players being confined to battlenet.20 while normal 1.18 users aren't required to use a linked bnet account (unless they intend to gut their entire system and force normal 1.18 users to link a bnet account)
Think about how SC2 does it, if you've dabbled with SC2 enough to be familiar.
Basically, you pay for your account, which lets you log into battle net. Then on each server you have said account. You can be ranked differently with different MMR's (afaik) on KR vs EU. 1.18 users could still create infinite accounts, because they won't be allowed to play ranked ladder games, just for fun melee games and UMS; and in those cases it doesn't matter whether you have 1 account or 700 accounts.
If matchmaking is separate, my assumption is that 1.18 will work much like it does now. BW: R will be similar, in that you can join those 1.18 style games if you want, but will also have matchmaking que, much like in SC2, where you hit a button and it finds you a matched based on MMR. Probably you'd log into 1.18 the same as you do now, and into BW: R in a style more similar to SC2, but both games would be connected to the same server, allowing BW: R users to join and host non ladder melee and UMS games with 1.18 users or vice versa.
On July 01 2017 00:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote: to be clear, i'm pumped for this game and i can't wait to play the campaign. SC1 won't install on my new machine and i'm too lazy to figure out how to trick it into installing correctly. It'll be nice to have an easy to install SC1. Thanks for making this game Blizzard.... and i'm sure you'll bleed me dry of much more cash on your projects designed to make multi-billions.
I replayed the campaign when SC:BW became free but I will do it again with SC:R to see the new between mission stuff they added.
that Mengsk speech after the "Hammer Falls" is the greatest speech in the history of video games! "....we shall win through... no matter the cost!"
Nah, I didn't find it very interesting.
Whoaa, Sacrilege!! That's the most offensive thing I've ever read! Well, probably because I've never been offended ever, but that's not the point! Also, I'm numb to sarcasm.. That's why I demand a trigger warning for inflammatory statements about BW lore, of any kind!
On July 01 2017 01:56 Endymion wrote: those saying it will deter smurfers, how do you know it will be locked to a single account? it's not that way on the 1.18 beta
It's using the blizzard client so I'd assume you might have to log in through the 2.0 account
you could just log in, start the game, and be able to make new accounts like normal though. it doesn't make sense since that's how you do it on 1.18 right now, and the servers are meant to be mixed? like, you can't have only remastered players being confined to battlenet.20 while normal 1.18 users aren't required to use a linked bnet account (unless they intend to gut their entire system and force normal 1.18 users to link a bnet account)
Think about how SC2 does it, if you've dabbled with SC2 enough to be familiar.
Basically, you pay for your account, which lets you log into battle net. Then on each server you have said account. You can be ranked differently with different MMR's (afaik) on KR vs EU. 1.18 users could still create infinite accounts, because they won't be allowed to play ranked ladder games, just for fun melee games and UMS; and in those cases it doesn't matter whether you have 1 account or 700 accounts.
If matchmaking is separate, my assumption is that 1.18 will work much like it does now. BW: R will be similar, in that you can join those 1.18 style games if you want, but will also have matchmaking que, much like in SC2, where you hit a button and it finds you a matched based on MMR. Probably you'd log into 1.18 the same as you do now, and into BW: R in a style more similar to SC2, but both games would be connected to the same server, allowing BW: R users to join and host non ladder melee and UMS games with 1.18 users or vice versa.
i think a good middle ground would be, still allow users as many accounts as they want, but only 1 in ladder per season. I mean maybe i wanna play casual melee/ums games as protoss or zerg and dont want my horrible offraces on my maina ccount. that seems like a decent balancing act imo.
Cause i also think it was announced this will be on bnet 2.0 so its not outside their capabilities
On June 30 2017 20:52 danielias wrote: $15 and you complain? You are demanding so much...I hate such clients. If you dont like it dont play it, simple. Go cry under your bed
Do you realize that people are not against the 15 $ price of remastered,but against the fake promises of Blizzard employers who said that Matchmaking was going to be free?
You dont understand how bussiness works. Sometimes you have to make changes/adjust along the way.
Can you be more grateful? They need support too.
it's a multi-billion dollar company. They don't give a c*** about your support, they just want you to buy the product.
On June 30 2017 20:52 danielias wrote: $15 and you complain? You are demanding so much...I hate such clients. If you dont like it dont play it, simple. Go cry under your bed
Do you realize that people are not against the 15 $ price of remastered,but against the fake promises of Blizzard employers who said that Matchmaking was going to be free?
You dont understand how bussiness works. Sometimes you have to make changes/adjust along the way.
Can you be more grateful? They need support too.
it's a multi-billion dollar company. They don't give a c*** about your support, they just want you to buy the product.
Them being a billion dollar company is why you should support.
They do care about support because otherwise they'd let that aspect of that business wither and fade away. This is a very niche part of their business, its not what making them a billion dollar company.
On June 30 2017 20:52 danielias wrote: $15 and you complain? You are demanding so much...I hate such clients. If you dont like it dont play it, simple. Go cry under your bed
Do you realize that people are not against the 15 $ price of remastered,but against the fake promises of Blizzard employers who said that Matchmaking was going to be free?
You dont understand how bussiness works. Sometimes you have to make changes/adjust along the way.
Can you be more grateful? They need support too.
it's a multi-billion dollar company. They don't give a c*** about your support, they just want you to buy the product.
Them being a billion dollar company is why you should support.
They do care about support because otherwise they'd let that aspect of that business wither and fade away. This is a very niche part of their business, its not what making them a billion dollar company.
sure, altruism and love for us few couple nerds is the true motivation here. You nailed it. Sorry, but that's a naive PoV in my opinion.
On June 30 2017 20:52 danielias wrote: $15 and you complain? You are demanding so much...I hate such clients. If you dont like it dont play it, simple. Go cry under your bed
Do you realize that people are not against the 15 $ price of remastered,but against the fake promises of Blizzard employers who said that Matchmaking was going to be free?
You dont understand how bussiness works. Sometimes you have to make changes/adjust along the way.
Can you be more grateful? They need support too.
it's a multi-billion dollar company. They don't give a c*** about your support, they just want you to buy the product.
Earnings are broken down by product, and the success of a product determines the direction and approach that future products will take. Saying "it's a multibillion dollar company" is a cop-out because resources and funding aren't fungible in that way. They don't just throw a million dollars to this team or that team on a whim. Game development is a very strict process of return on investment. The vision-holder needs his pitch backed up by reliable metrics and evidence or it won't get funded.
I've been in various roles of game development ranging from QA to Production for 15 years, and I've learned there are three universal quality metrics: revenue (how well your game is doing financially), retention (how regular is your playerbase over time), and perception (how well received your game is). You can have high revenue, but with poor retention and perception (it's not fun so the playerbase dwindles, or it feels like a cash grab) that revenue stream won't last. You can have good retention, but with poor revenue and perception (your game is engaging, but buggy or with a poorly-tuned economy) players will eventually get fed up and negative word-of-mouth will stop new players from coming in. You can have good perception, but with poor revenue and retention (your game is maybe visually appealing but lacks depth, or is well-balanced but lacks content) it won't be able to stay afloat.
In order for SC:R to get greenlit, the PM had to make a case that yes, it will be a profitable venture because we have this huge playerbase in Korea, there's a groundswell of support for BW rising again, we can modernize it with all these features. We expect to move X units over Y time at Z price with a development cycle of 18 months, therefore it will be profitable.
Maybe since the release of 1.18 they ran some more simulations over the demand of SC:R and determined that the X units they initially projected was now only going to be 0.8X, so they had to increase the value of the Remaster product by moving matchmaking exclusively to that in order to hit their numbers. I don't know. But it's absolutely imperative that the playerbase supports the development team (not just the developer) if the product is going to succeed. If SC:R hits 2X or 3X its initial projection, that's going to ripple out to other teams that SC:R's approach was a little different, and this is what worked for them and what the players like the most, therefore this is something we could apply to other projects.
On June 30 2017 20:52 danielias wrote: $15 and you complain? You are demanding so much...I hate such clients. If you dont like it dont play it, simple. Go cry under your bed
Do you realize that people are not against the 15 $ price of remastered,but against the fake promises of Blizzard employers who said that Matchmaking was going to be free?
You dont understand how bussiness works. Sometimes you have to make changes/adjust along the way.
Can you be more grateful? They need support too.
it's a multi-billion dollar company. They don't give a c*** about your support, they just want you to buy the product.
Earnings are broken down by product, and the success of a product determines the direction and approach that future products will take. Saying "it's a multibillion dollar company" is a cop-out because resources and funding aren't fungible in that way. They don't just throw a million dollars to this team or that team on a whim. Game development is a very strict process of return on investment. The vision-holder needs his pitch backed up by reliable metrics and evidence or it won't get funded.
I've been in various roles of game development ranging from QA to Production for 15 years, and I've learned there are three universal quality metrics: revenue (how well your game is doing financially), retention (how regular is your playerbase over time), and perception (how well received your game is). You can have high revenue, but with poor retention and perception (it's not fun so the playerbase dwindles, or it feels like a cash grab) that revenue stream won't last. You can have good retention, but with poor revenue and perception (your game is engaging, but buggy or with a poorly-tuned economy) players will eventually get fed up and negative word-of-mouth will stop new players from coming in. You can have good perception, but with poor revenue and retention (your game is maybe visually appealing but lacks depth, or is well-balanced but lacks content) it won't be able to stay afloat.
In order for SC:R to get greenlit, the PM had to make a case that yes, it will be a profitable venture because we have this huge playerbase in Korea, there's a groundswell of support for BW rising again, we can modernize it with all these features. We expect to move X units over Y time at Z price with a development cycle of 18 months, therefore it will be profitable.
Maybe since the release of 1.18 they ran some more simulations over the demand of SC:R and determined that the X units they initially projected was now only going to be 0.8X, so they had to increase the value of the Remaster product by moving matchmaking exclusively to that in order to hit their numbers. I don't know. But it's absolutely imperative that the playerbase supports the development team (not just the developer) if the product is going to succeed. If SC:R hits 2X or 3X its initial projection, that's going to ripple out to other teams that SC:R's approach was a little different, and this is what worked for them and what the players like the most, therefore this is something we could apply to other projects.
yeah ofc retention and perception of your product is very important, i didn't mean to argue that. What i meant to argue is
On July 01 2017 05:10 danielias wrote: Can you be more grateful? They need support too. I mean stop being suck a jerk. If you are disapoitment or sad, keep that to your self and dont buy it. period.
[highlight: my emphasis]
If you understand support as perception and retention, you could argue that Blizzard needs support; in that sense. But, we have to keep in mind that we contextualize this as feedback that is being interpreted professionally in a qualitative and quantitative fashion in order to increase future product and brand success. Thus, making sure, we have a meaningful discussion about the pro's and con's of this release is a good thing. It's also a good thing to voice your opinion even if your not buying the game, simply because it's valuable, as you pointed out for feedback.
Essentially, i do not mind at all if, Blizzard creates additional incentives to buy the game. As you explained, there might be a number of different reasons in simulated sales of product that warrant such a decision. For what it's worth, it's a bad idea to make matchmaking that incentive, because you run the risk of alienating some of your long term customers, who have played the game for a long time. I've bought BW in 1998 and i have bought additional copies of the game over the years. A central experience of Broodwar has been the multiplayer and by extension, a competitive ladder. Taking away this central piece of the gaming experience, when it was first announced to be maintained, is a slap to the face of long term competitive Broodwar players. This can mean two things in my opinion. Either, it's a bad decision by the marketing team or the expected portion of "long term veterans" to buy a unit of the game is very low relative to the expected amount of total units. Because in that case, the amount of negative perception is negligible. I suspect the latter.
I never seriously expected MM to be included in free version.
low percentage of people would buy the game without any 'real' arguments for it. Graphics are eye candy, sound is irrelevant. MM is the ONLY freaking real selling point.
I don't understand complain about matchmaking. They already made game free and if they will allow almost all features then what's the point of purchasing remastered then, just for graphics? Remember back then when SC2 didn't even have starter version and you needed to pay it monthly to play it? Today Blizzard let's you test their games till you decide to buy or not.
I think it's also important when talking about the matchmaking: Nobody paid for anything until now.
Everyone who is complaining about the matchmaking change is behaving as if they put down money on SC:R and there's no way they can get it back after being "lied to", but they didn't pay for anything. If you don't like it and don't want to support their decision, you haven't given them anything and you can choose to purchase it or not now that it's actually for sale.
On July 01 2017 08:54 niteReloaded wrote: MM is the ONLY freaking real selling point.
I still disagree with this, if matchmaking were the only thing that mattered then people would still be playing on iccup and shieldbattery, etc. and Blizz would have hardly a reason to remaster the entire game.
On July 01 2017 09:32 eviltomahawk wrote: I'd wait for an official statement about the matchmaking. They've got conflicting information on the same page, not to mention a forum post.
Yeah of course we got that since that's how the whole debate got sparked, but then right above we got "play for free with improved matchmaking" and the official forum post from earlier. It's a shitshow with such limited contradicting three pieces of information.
On July 01 2017 09:45 eviltomahawk wrote: Yeah of course we got that since that's how the whole debate got sparked, but then right above we got "play for free with improved matchmaking" and the official forum post from earlier. It's a shitshow with such limited contradicting three pieces of information.
thats a post that they made months ago, sadly it looks like they decided to go in a diff direction
On June 30 2017 20:52 danielias wrote: $15 and you complain? You are demanding so much...I hate such clients. If you dont like it dont play it, simple. Go cry under your bed
Do you realize that people are not against the 15 $ price of remastered,but against the fake promises of Blizzard employers who said that Matchmaking was going to be free?
You dont understand how bussiness works. Sometimes you have to make changes/adjust along the way.
Can you be more grateful? They need support too.
it's a multi-billion dollar company. They don't give a c*** about your support, they just want you to buy the product.
Earnings are broken down by product, and the success of a product determines the direction and approach that future products will take. Saying "it's a multibillion dollar company" is a cop-out because resources and funding aren't fungible in that way. They don't just throw a million dollars to this team or that team on a whim. Game development is a very strict process of return on investment. The vision-holder needs his pitch backed up by reliable metrics and evidence or it won't get funded.
I've been in various roles of game development ranging from QA to Production for 15 years, and I've learned there are three universal quality metrics: revenue (how well your game is doing financially), retention (how regular is your playerbase over time), and perception (how well received your game is). You can have high revenue, but with poor retention and perception (it's not fun so the playerbase dwindles, or it feels like a cash grab) that revenue stream won't last. You can have good retention, but with poor revenue and perception (your game is engaging, but buggy or with a poorly-tuned economy) players will eventually get fed up and negative word-of-mouth will stop new players from coming in. You can have good perception, but with poor revenue and retention (your game is maybe visually appealing but lacks depth, or is well-balanced but lacks content) it won't be able to stay afloat.
In order for SC:R to get greenlit, the PM had to make a case that yes, it will be a profitable venture because we have this huge playerbase in Korea, there's a groundswell of support for BW rising again, we can modernize it with all these features. We expect to move X units over Y time at Z price with a development cycle of 18 months, therefore it will be profitable.
Maybe since the release of 1.18 they ran some more simulations over the demand of SC:R and determined that the X units they initially projected was now only going to be 0.8X, so they had to increase the value of the Remaster product by moving matchmaking exclusively to that in order to hit their numbers. I don't know. But it's absolutely imperative that the playerbase supports the development team (not just the developer) if the product is going to succeed. If SC:R hits 2X or 3X its initial projection, that's going to ripple out to other teams that SC:R's approach was a little different, and this is what worked for them and what the players like the most, therefore this is something we could apply to other projects.
yeah ofc retention and perception of your product is very important, i didn't mean to argue that. What i meant to argue is
On July 01 2017 05:10 danielias wrote: Can you be more grateful? They need support too. I mean stop being suck a jerk. If you are disapoitment or sad, keep that to your self and dont buy it. period.
[highlight: my emphasis]
If you understand support as perception and retention, you could argue that Blizzard needs support; in that sense. But, we have to keep in mind that we contextualize this as feedback that is being interpreted professionally in a qualitative and quantitative fashion in order to increase future product and brand success. Thus, making sure, we have a meaningful discussion about the pro's and con's of this release is a good thing. It's also a good thing to voice your opinion even if your not buying the game, simply because it's valuable, as you pointed out for feedback.
Essentially, i do not mind at all if, Blizzard creates additional incentives to buy the game. As you explained, there might be a number of different reasons in simulated sales of product that warrant such a decision. For what it's worth, it's a bad idea to make matchmaking that incentive, because you run the risk of alienating some of your long term customers, who have played the game for a long time. I've bought BW in 1998 and i have bought additional copies of the game over the years. A central experience of Broodwar has been the multiplayer and by extension, a competitive ladder. Taking away this central piece of the gaming experience, when it was first announced to be maintained, is a slap to the face of long term competitive Broodwar players. This can mean two things in my opinion. Either, it's a bad decision by the marketing team or the expected portion of "long term veterans" to buy a unit of the game is very low relative to the expected amount of total units. Because in that case, the amount of negative perception is negligible. I suspect the latter.
Yeah I definitely agree that not directly and publicly addressing the matter and making a stealth change is harmful to perception. But I can also see it from another perspective: the no-win scenario. If you've already said publicly that you will support matchmaking for Classic and then you have to pivot away from that and limit it to Remastered users (for whatever good reason), that's a sucky feeling. So they can easily become stuck between the rock of "we should keep our players in the loop about this change because transparency is important" and the hard place of "kotaku will run 'Blizz took this away' articles and ignite a firestorm". We're already seeing a microcosm of that on this hardcore competitive gaming forum, but it's rather tepid compared to the potential negative press. I certainly don't envy them. So maybe they're banking on saying nothing and flying under the radar a little bit so that the mainstream gaming press doesn't jump down their throats. It's probably the more savvy move, as much as the players would appreciate an official explanation for the pivot.
It's a good thing remastered is required for ladder, if I was blizzard and wanted to make moneys I'd do the same thing obviously, it's a business decision, it's also totally going to be worth the 15$
hell I'd pay 15$ only for automatch making without anything else new
On July 01 2017 10:47 ROOTFayth wrote: It's a good thing remastered is required for ladder, if I was blizzard and wanted to make moneys I'd do the same thing obviously, it's a business decision, it's also totally going to be worth the 15$
hell I'd pay 15$ only for automatch making without anything else new
Well thats a frankly ridiculous tact to take, and if more people looked at games like that, we would be force fed shit on a regular basis and never get a good game.
No company is owed my support or my gratitude, unless they make something I'm actually grateful for. Which, at this point, is up in air. Blizzard is not my friend, they are not my buddy, I owe them nothing. If their product is shite, or they lied about what they were intending, or whatever, I'm not going to give them any leeway, because why would I?
This mcdonalds burger tastes like ass! But mcdonalds needs my support...what?
You either give me a product I want, or you dont and your irrelevant to me. Thats how the market works. Worse than that however, they could be giving us a product that destroys a pre-existing product! Thats not just a bad tasting burger, thats something far worse.
On July 01 2017 08:15 Excalibur_Z wrote: Earnings are broken down by product, and the success of a product determines the direction and approach that future products will take. Saying "it's a multibillion dollar company" is a cop-out because resources and funding aren't fungible in that way. They don't just throw a million dollars to this team or that team on a whim. Game development is a very strict process of return on investment. The vision-holder needs his pitch backed up by reliable metrics and evidence or it won't get funded.
my #2 customer is a software company that views 1 of their products as a "prestige brand". they continue to fund it as long as it breaks even because of the positive vibes it generates for their over all brand. They do break things down by product, however, otther factors go into the decision making. Brand strength is extremely important to them. Likewise, Blizzard views brand strength as critical.
ATVI is going to make $4+ billion this year and i'd say SCR will be their least profitable release this year. It will, however, generate "prestige" that other products can not.
MM being only on remastered is for the best. Otherwise there'd be a ton of 1.18 whiners saying their opponent who was playing RM only won because they had widescreen support and had a wider field of view.
i payed 15 dollars for 15 years of fun, i dont have problem to pay another 15 $ even if i never play it again... im pissed as everyone that blizzard killed BW in korea but those 15 years totally worth of the fun and if remaster helps just a little bit with revival in korea fair enough I wonder how much costs running the servers... i understand that we all migrated to PGT, abyss etc.. but still without original battle.net its hard to imagine scene would survive
On July 01 2017 10:47 ROOTFayth wrote: It's a good thing remastered is required for ladder, if I was blizzard and wanted to make moneys I'd do the same thing obviously, it's a business decision, it's also totally going to be worth the 15$
hell I'd pay 15$ only for automatch making without anything else new
Well thats a frankly ridiculous tact to take, and if more people looked at games like that, we would be force fed shit on a regular basis and never get a good game.
No company is owed my support or my gratitude, unless they make something I'm actually grateful for. Which, at this point, is up in air. Blizzard is not my friend, they are not my buddy, I owe them nothing. If their product is shite, or they lied about what they were intending, or whatever, I'm not going to give them any leeway, because why would I?
This mcdonalds burger tastes like ass! But mcdonalds needs my support...what?
You either give me a product I want, or you dont and your irrelevant to me. Thats how the market works. Worse than that however, they could be giving us a product that destroys a pre-existing product! Thats not just a bad tasting burger, thats something far worse.
Then don't buy it lol
I think it's a sick deal and matchmaking is by far my favorite aspect about it.
On June 30 2017 20:52 danielias wrote: $15 and you complain? You are demanding so much...I hate such clients. If you dont like it dont play it, simple. Go cry under your bed
Do you realize that people are not against the 15 $ price of remastered,but against the fake promises of Blizzard employers who said that Matchmaking was going to be free?
You dont understand how bussiness works. Sometimes you have to make changes/adjust along the way.
Can you be more grateful? They need support too.
it's a multi-billion dollar company. They don't give a c*** about your support, they just want you to buy the product.
Earnings are broken down by product, and the success of a product determines the direction and approach that future products will take. Saying "it's a multibillion dollar company" is a cop-out because resources and funding aren't fungible in that way. They don't just throw a million dollars to this team or that team on a whim. Game development is a very strict process of return on investment. The vision-holder needs his pitch backed up by reliable metrics and evidence or it won't get funded.
I've been in various roles of game development ranging from QA to Production for 15 years, and I've learned there are three universal quality metrics: revenue (how well your game is doing financially), retention (how regular is your playerbase over time), and perception (how well received your game is). You can have high revenue, but with poor retention and perception (it's not fun so the playerbase dwindles, or it feels like a cash grab) that revenue stream won't last. You can have good retention, but with poor revenue and perception (your game is engaging, but buggy or with a poorly-tuned economy) players will eventually get fed up and negative word-of-mouth will stop new players from coming in. You can have good perception, but with poor revenue and retention (your game is maybe visually appealing but lacks depth, or is well-balanced but lacks content) it won't be able to stay afloat.
In order for SC:R to get greenlit, the PM had to make a case that yes, it will be a profitable venture because we have this huge playerbase in Korea, there's a groundswell of support for BW rising again, we can modernize it with all these features. We expect to move X units over Y time at Z price with a development cycle of 18 months, therefore it will be profitable.
Maybe since the release of 1.18 they ran some more simulations over the demand of SC:R and determined that the X units they initially projected was now only going to be 0.8X, so they had to increase the value of the Remaster product by moving matchmaking exclusively to that in order to hit their numbers. I don't know. But it's absolutely imperative that the playerbase supports the development team (not just the developer) if the product is going to succeed. If SC:R hits 2X or 3X its initial projection, that's going to ripple out to other teams that SC:R's approach was a little different, and this is what worked for them and what the players like the most, therefore this is something we could apply to other projects.
Best post on TL , hands down !
I really hope SC:R works out and becomes a great profitable product , because if it does I'm sure in a couple of years Wc3:R will follow
and regarding the MM issue , I dont believe MM is the real selling point as some claim here, its a big one no doubt but not the main thing , Im a casual BW fan who only started watching in 2010 alongside sc2 , I utterly suck at BW , I dropped the 15 $ because I wanna relive that epic campaign again in modern graphics on my modern PC and I think 15$ is totally worth it , if I ever feel like giving up on Wc3 or DoW 3 I might give BW:R MM a shot+ Show Spoiler +
who am I kidding ? that ain't happening anytime soon XD
, I may be a minority voice on this forum but it is something to consider , Im sure there are many like me.
15$ is the perfect price. I dont think blizzard really want new players.. they probably just want old school players to spend a few buck. The players are probably all 30 years old+ so they dont have a lot of time to play an old game. So if it was 40$ and more, they might find the price too expensive and just pass. But 15$ is quite cheap and almost everybody will just say why the fuck not! Blizzard will earn more money by selling more copies at a lower price instead of less copies at higher price! I will pre-order it! For auir
has somebody saw this? This guys says that Gorush was invited to play the game this week, and Gorush stated that Blizzard has only revealed 1080p. When you upgrade it to 4K(Pressing F7), the graphics get enhanced, there are better ligth and shadows, aditional glow effects, there is water animations, etc.
On July 01 2017 08:15 Excalibur_Z wrote: Earnings are broken down by product, and the success of a product determines the direction and approach that future products will take. Saying "it's a multibillion dollar company" is a cop-out because resources and funding aren't fungible in that way. They don't just throw a million dollars to this team or that team on a whim. Game development is a very strict process of return on investment. The vision-holder needs his pitch backed up by reliable metrics and evidence or it won't get funded.
financing of entertainment software development goes through the same process as any other form consumer used software. how much money will it make?
the guys at the top like to keep their chests puffed out and talk big about how important every nickel is... its their way of making sure everyone below them takes everything super seriously. they need to people in the middle and at the bottom to believe its a very strict process and every month and every quarter is "do or die" for the project.
their "metrics" and "projections" are just guesses. these MBAs want you to think that they have everything mapped out correctly so that you'll do the project on-time and on-budget; when their GUESSES of sales turn out correct the ground level development staff gets a nice big bonus. when their GUESSES are wrong they point fingers in every direction and you get fuck all for a bonus.
One of the products a consultancy (i work at part time) sells is called "Project Rescue". The guys doing "Project Rescue" just move from one disaster to the next. Time and again big-name, big-talk, tough-ass executives fund the re-doing of a project 2, 3,4 or more times. They do this with their chests puffed out, shoulders wide... while wearing a $2,000 suit. Listening to Blizzard's history it sounds like they re-do projects all the time..i think the code word is "iterative process"
i could start a puppy farm with the amount of dog fucking i've seen in software projects over the last 7 years.
On July 02 2017 01:57 MymSlorm wrote: has somebody saw this? This guys says that Gorush was invited to play the game this week, and Gorush stated that Blizzard has only revealed 1080p. When you upgrade it to 4K(Pressing F7), the graphics get enhanced, there are better ligth and shadows, aditional glow effects, there is water animations, etc.
When a 20 year old game is the best reason to upgrade, that's funny and sad.
I love how terrible the Protoss UI looks, and how bad the flying shoulder pads in the marine death animation looks. It's as if it was an indie project remaster, like a small team of 3 guys, and they all had a go at the animations. The probably spent more on the marketing than the actual programmming and art assets. $15 is cheap compared to sc2 but expensive compared to what is effectively an indie project that will sell millions. At least the visual problems with zergling animations are gone now. Buildings in particular look great. So do the more mechanical units like goliaths. One of the you tube vidoes have some wierdness with dark swarm though.
On July 01 2017 10:47 ROOTFayth wrote: It's a good thing remastered is required for ladder, if I was blizzard and wanted to make moneys I'd do the same thing obviously, it's a business decision, it's also totally going to be worth the 15$
hell I'd pay 15$ only for automatch making without anything else new
Well thats a frankly ridiculous tact to take, and if more people looked at games like that, we would be force fed shit on a regular basis and never get a good game.
No company is owed my support or my gratitude, unless they make something I'm actually grateful for. Which, at this point, is up in air. Blizzard is not my friend, they are not my buddy, I owe them nothing. If their product is shite, or they lied about what they were intending, or whatever, I'm not going to give them any leeway, because why would I?
This mcdonalds burger tastes like ass! But mcdonalds needs my support...what?
You either give me a product I want, or you dont and your irrelevant to me. Thats how the market works. Worse than that however, they could be giving us a product that destroys a pre-existing product! Thats not just a bad tasting burger, thats something far worse.
well to me the new product isn't the HD quality, it's the auto match making with a leaderboard, everything else I don't really care for but it will bring in some players which is also what we want
On July 01 2017 11:04 Dazed. wrote: You either give me a product I want, or you dont and your irrelevant to me. Thats how the market works.
So you really don't think matchmaking, profiles with stats, widescreen, custom hotkeys and a refreshed playerbase are worth a measly $15? Not even including the other upgrades, I'd easily pay $50 for that. Why is it that you get off so much on holding out on paying such a small amount of money and talking shit about blizzard? Like you said, they're offering you a product at a price. Buy it or don't, get off of your high horse and stop acting like the big mean man did something to you that warrants outrage.
On June 30 2017 10:27 thedeadhaji wrote: O_o Windows only.
The main page literally says mac right next to pc XD
They definitely updated that page since the time I looked at it (actually layout looks very different from the version I saw). There was only a Windows logo that was substantially larger and in blue, not white and next to the Mac logo. I guess they caught their error quickly (glad it was just a clerical error!)
On July 02 2017 01:57 MymSlorm wrote: has somebody saw this? This guys says that Gorush was invited to play the game this week, and Gorush stated that Blizzard has only revealed 1080p. When you upgrade it to 4K(Pressing F7), the graphics get enhanced, there are better ligth and shadows, aditional glow effects, there is water animations, etc.
When a 20 year old game is the best reason to upgrade, that's funny and sad.
the good thing is that i don't need to upgrade, i have a GTX 970. And i don't really think SC remastered is going to be too demanding of resources, i'm sure that with a 1050 or R7 260x is enough to run the game at 4K
a thread of paragraphs of people complaining that the game that went free might not get the new matchmaking.
I know you guys might only play starcraft or free to play games, but some companies are releasing remasters for $40+ but I would say most are around $30, that's double the prices of sc:rm.
On July 01 2017 10:47 ROOTFayth wrote: It's a good thing remastered is required for ladder, if I was blizzard and wanted to make moneys I'd do the same thing obviously, it's a business decision, it's also totally going to be worth the 15$
hell I'd pay 15$ only for automatch making without anything else new
Well thats a frankly ridiculous tact to take, and if more people looked at games like that, we would be force fed shit on a regular basis and never get a good game.
No company is owed my support or my gratitude, unless they make something I'm actually grateful for. Which, at this point, is up in air. Blizzard is not my friend, they are not my buddy, I owe them nothing. If their product is shite, or they lied about what they were intending, or whatever, I'm not going to give them any leeway, because why would I?
This mcdonalds burger tastes like ass! But mcdonalds needs my support...what?
You either give me a product I want, or you dont and your irrelevant to me. Thats how the market works. Worse than that however, they could be giving us a product that destroys a pre-existing product! Thats not just a bad tasting burger, thats something far worse.
We already know its a great game. They made improvements on top of a great game we love by adding those features which are going to make the same game far more enjoyable for most enthusiasts.
has somebody saw this? This guys says that Gorush was invited to play the game this week, and Gorush stated that Blizzard has only revealed 1080p. When you upgrade it to 4K(Pressing F7), the graphics get enhanced, there are better ligth and shadows, aditional glow effects, there is water animations, etc.
While GoRush mentioned that it was 4K graphics, there were talks on TL that F7 enabled extra effects and particles that made the game look nicer. I'm pretty sure this is what GoRush was talking about when he said '4K' graphics: Not actually 4K resolution graphics, but extra added effects that can be togged with F7 key.
But for some reason, I didn't see F7 being mentioned on Lowko's Vlog where he got to try remastered alpha version (it only mentions F5).
On June 30 2017 11:18 Waxangel wrote: I really do hope they reconsider the matchmaking thing. I feel there's a bit of an aura of complacency with revival BW right now that's obscuring the fact that the game absolutely needs new players at some point (hopefully the current bunch can carry it for a long time). A free game with good matchmaking hardly guarantees that kids will start playing BW, but it's really the best shot BW has for generation change, and in the best case, growth.
i have to disagree i rly hope they keep it this way i was super scared of all the smurfs just make new account go MM and then first lose new account go into MM ... it would REALLY destroy a working MM system if it worked that way also cheaters would risk nothing so u had cheaters in mm, now they can lose the money/account
I am still a bit confused. So the old bw version won't get any ranking system either? I mean there has to be some way to somewhat define how good you are, no?
On July 04 2017 22:56 The_Red_Viper wrote: I am still a bit confused. So the old bw version won't get any ranking system either? I mean there has to be some way to somewhat define how good you are, no?
You should be able to ladder with sq (no HD), but without remastered I guess it depends on what happens with iccup/fish (well, i guess it's safe to say that iccup will die for the most part)
Not everybody can "ladder" on fish right? (latency). I really would expect that blizzard at least gives the 1.18 users a way to find fair matches. That would mean a ladder though and that is apparently not happening. I get that they wanna give remastered some special features, but if you cannot even make sure to play against equally strong opponents on 1.18, what is the point?
I feel like I'm just gonna buy this now, and hope that they give nobody reasons to stick with 1.18 at the cost of being expelled from any public ladder (which means ease of finding public games vs similarly skilled opponents without cuting yourself off from all the other players who might just do fun games)
btw I like the aiur nexus and stuff its funny and look quite good, probably not over the top, however I much prefer the protoss UI at bottom of screen in original but w/e eh, will see! (out of the 3 race UIs in remastered, I like the Z one, but the T and P ones feel bit squarish or smtg, almost like they look older than the original u know?? just too squarish/undetailed)
(about the special CC/Nex/Hive, will this apply to any you own, or the first one you have/make?)
I thought it was going to be $9.99 dollars. Maybe i was being too unrealistic. Anyways, after seeing the battle chest that being offered to korea, I will not be buying the game until we are offered a battle chest as well. Not hating, it just that the battle chest looks amazing!
On July 04 2017 23:32 custombuild wrote: I thought it was going to be $9.99 dollars. Maybe i was being too unrealistic. Anyways, after seeing the battle chest that being offered to korea, I will not be buying the game until we are offered a battle chest as well. Not hating, it just that the battle chest looks amazing!
I mean i will buy remastered no matter what, but the move is still a bit weird. Making bw free to play seems to not havy any impact if it basically means you cannot really "ladder" (not necessarily with matchmaking ofc, but some from of ranking/ladder)
On July 04 2017 23:35 The_Red_Viper wrote: I mean i will buy remastered no matter what, but the move is still a bit weird. Making bw free to play seems to not havy any impact if it basically means you cannot really "ladder" (not necessarily with matchmaking ofc, but some from of ranking/ladder)
yeah it means if smtg is disliked in using remastered to play competitively, people using 1.18 would want to go to another ladder and be cornered to low pop private servers splitting community but since remastered seems to play like original AND can also display (and sound?) like original... why will anybody want to stick to original? unknown (pc requirements a possibility for some) I hope the ladder system is good
On July 04 2017 23:32 custombuild wrote: I thought it was going to be $9.99 dollars. Maybe i was being too unrealistic. Anyways, after seeing the battle chest that being offered to korea, I will not be buying the game until we are offered a battle chest as well. Not hating, it just that the battle chest looks amazing!
woot is the battle chest? lol
Basically, Koreans are getting all these goodies for the same price.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gNYdGFI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eEjJUuT.png)
![[image loading]](https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4265/35581776316_9dcb0f4b36_b.jpg)
)
versus 4:3," Sousa said to Ars. "We thought that was going to be the biggest problem, right? But the pros we asked about it, they all said it doesn’t really matter."
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qKvtzQc.png)
. I don't really mind not having matchmaking for 1v1 ladder games, woulda been nice to find team games quickly tho. Oh well there's still asia i guess.
.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RLk0zVX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qLJsdgC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jGQnR2o.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ar4nvHo.jpg)
