Nope i'll just stick to whats good - BW . Maybe when the second expansion comes out , because the zerg race right now is a joke compared to the other 2 races . Also not having lan isn't helping it either . I'm probably gonna play the champaign from someone else .

nate_river

40 Posts

May 29 2010 07:58 GMT

#83

I dont like the game right now but i will buy it because has the potential with some changes to be great game.

EnderSC

62 Posts

May 29 2010 07:58 GMT

#84

Someday they are going to make us pay monthly to play their games online. They have this image of being such aware of the community needs but it is not like that. It's just a big corporation where only money has an interest.

rotinegg

United States1719 Posts

May 29 2010 08:00 GMT

#85

if they stop being greedy bastards, i might..... nah not really

Djzapz

Canada10681 Posts

May 29 2010 08:01 GMT

#86

On May 29 2010 16:56 junemermaid wrote:

Show nested quote +

Are you seriously condoning piracy?

Hypothetically.......

Maybe =OOOO

fight_or_flight

United States3988 Posts

May 29 2010 08:01 GMT

#87

On May 29 2010 16:56 junemermaid wrote:

Show nested quote +

Are you seriously condoning piracy?

I'm not condoning piracy because the "community is unhappy", I'm just making a business argument about the statistical odds of people buying the game, which is the topic of this thread.

I won't buy it or play it at all personally.

Mentos

United Kingdom203 Posts

May 29 2010 08:03 GMT

#88

the game is going to be looked after a lot even after launch, plus dont forget that starcraft only gained its true colors when bw was released.
also, people who vote no are kidding themselves.

Omar91

Angola620 Posts

May 29 2010 08:04 GMT

#89

Gonna buy it for the single-player campaign ...and hope for Battle-net to get better

fight_or_flight

United States3988 Posts

May 29 2010 08:04 GMT

#90

On May 29 2010 17:03 Mentos wrote:
also, people who vote no are kidding themselves.

The qualifier is "in its current state". Blizzard could of course change the things people don't like in an expansion.

Orangu

Canada198 Posts

May 29 2010 08:05 GMT

#91

I don't understand, if you like the game then buy it if you don't don't, all the bnet stuff can change after release( or before still 2 months till release). To not buy the game cause of no chat channels your basically saying that chat channels are worth more to you than playing the game?!? and the enjoyment you'd get out of the game. All this boycotting stuff seems like such an over reaction to 1 guys stupid interview. Now if Blizzard is still ignoring the community months to years down the road then the truth is the game prob isn't going to do well in the long run, regardless of whether they got your 60 on release or not, which is really all that matters. Then again maybe i just don't like chat channels as much as everyone else seems to.

Geo.Rion

7377 Posts

May 29 2010 08:10 GMT

#92

absolutely not

b.net 2.0 is a failure as it is, the game is not balanced and there are many things about this game which make me sick

If they don t make serious changes i wont buy it

fight_or_flight

United States3988 Posts

May 29 2010 08:13 GMT

#93

It might make sense for a lot of people to buy it, and to those people it seems like we are blowing things out of proportion.

The thing is, is that this community is older than the average gaming community, and therefore our time is more valuable. Frankly, we don't have time for stupidity. $60 isn't really that much to a lot of people here.

kevin349

United States68 Posts

May 29 2010 08:16 GMT

#94

I'm willing to bet at least 75% of the people that hit no are liars....

Joseki

United States200 Posts

May 29 2010 08:18 GMT

#95

Im going to buy it, but I will NOT be happy with my use of 60$. =(

Synk

United States297 Posts

May 29 2010 08:20 GMT

#96

I think people are overreacting about chat channels. The real burner is the fact that blizzard seems to be oblivious in their responses to people asking why there are no chat channels. When I honestly stop and think about it, every newer game I own doesn't use chat channel's anymore. You have voice chat + out of game programs to communicate with people you really enjoy, furthermore I'm not sure what would be talked about in a chat system for an RTS besides stuff that has nothing to do with the RTS which you can do that anywhere. I suppose it could help you network a bit better and I do think SC2 needs some kind of better "lets connect" kind of system but when I think back to most general chat channels I have seen in my life they are a cesspool of human communication. Just go log into WoW for example and try to read the general chat system for more than 30 minutes, you will be ashamed to be the same species as these people due to how incredibly stupid they all act.

Having everyone around the world play on different servers and forcing them to buy seperate sc2 accounts is pretty stupid, I can't really defend it. It feels like the hand holding design most games take nowadays, instead of just letting people pick what server they want to log into blizz is assuming their average player will be too stupid(blizz likes to market to 8 yr olds) to pick the server they really want and it might result in a "poor customer experience" so they are trying to eliminate that. Maybe thats a realistic thing to shoot for to have them change, but I cannot deny I'm feeling like they really don't listen or just don't care about the community much.

Personally I believe Blizzard designs things based on statistics they pull out of their system, it explains a lot of the random seeming changes they like to make ( in all their games ). Also explains why they have such huge beta test, to get larger sample sizes. But that results in the race that simply "isn't that fun" being buffed to holy hell because no-one wants to play it, but blizzard wants their stats to line up properly so they buff and buff until people play a race they don't even want to play ( or a class ).

edit: I'm still buying sc2.

Kanil

United States1713 Posts

May 29 2010 08:22 GMT

#97

I'm going to buy it. It's fuckin' StarCraft 2. Of course I'm going to buy it.

I'm going to feel very violated and abused by Blizzard, but that's not going to stop me from buying it.

StarCraft. 2.

Fortunately, if Battle.net 2.0 ruins SC2, we still have two more opportunities to give Blizzard the finger and not buy their expansions.

zimz

United States510 Posts

May 29 2010 08:25 GMT

#98

ill buy it later , not too attractted to it anymore

tyCe

Australia2542 Posts

May 29 2010 08:37 GMT

#99

On May 29 2010 17:22 Kanil wrote:
I'm going to buy it. It's fuckin' StarCraft 2. Of course I'm going to buy it.

I'm going to feel very violated and abused by Blizzard, but that's not going to stop me from buying it.

StarCraft. 2.

Fortunately, if Battle.net 2.0 ruins SC2, we still have two more opportunities to give Blizzard the finger and not buy their expansions.

I feel the same but unfortunately, that's allowing Blizzard to screw around with us even more.

Rabiator

Germany3948 Posts

May 29 2010 08:46 GMT

#100

I have actually thought about reinstalling Natural Selection again and hope for them to finish their work on Natural Selection 2. Although it is "only an ego shooter" (Half-Life / Steam) these guys combined it with some strategic elements. There are two sides to it: Marines and Aliens.

The Marines have one commander who can put down "machines" like extractors, machine gun and siege cannon turrets and issue commands to his Marines (other players). He also drops down better weapons and all is paid for by resources.

For the Aliens it is different, because they can mutate into different forms and one of them is a builder, who can drop the resource gatherers and some support turrets. There are also Zergling-like small ones, Mutalisk-like flyers (although they look like plucked chicken somewhat) and even scary Ultralisk-like Elephants ...

As far as it goes it is a neat alternative and has been around for some years.