Page 2 of 2

Re: SC2 costs $100 million to make

PostPosted:Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:34 pm
by Shrinweck
I was talking about Wraiths and Ghosts from the original.

Re: SC2 costs $100 million to make

PostPosted:Thu Jul 22, 2010 5:00 pm
by Eric
Again even that stuff was clunky too! Wraith cloaking would fail, Ghosts in general are pretty unstable! Come now, know your SC lore. ;P

Re: SC2 costs $100 million to make

PostPosted:Thu Jul 22, 2010 5:16 pm
by Don
There's nothing unstable about cloaking technology. The original manual probably said they were experimental but then it also said Dragoons are limited in number, and same with Immortals (maybe they only have 3 gazillion of those left). Or that Dragoons have antimatter disruptors that somehow do less damage than a nuclear powered Yamato Gun.

Re: SC2 costs $100 million to make

PostPosted:Thu Jul 22, 2010 5:25 pm
by Zeus
Eric wrote: Uhhh, SC1 had a storyline, lots of people enjoyed the campaign myself included, I know people buying this mainly for the campaign and don't care about multiplayer. >.> If you don't like the story that's fine, but don't say SC's story sucks.
Oh, I thought the trailer was pretty good. Actually reminded me alot of Mass Effect. But considering how no one other than you has ever talked about the single-player campaign, I was wondering why they'd even bother with the effort. THat's not the selling point

Re: SC2 costs $100 million to make

PostPosted:Thu Jul 22, 2010 5:57 pm
by Don
Zeus wrote:
Eric wrote: Uhhh, SC1 had a storyline, lots of people enjoyed the campaign myself included, I know people buying this mainly for the campaign and don't care about multiplayer. >.> If you don't like the story that's fine, but don't say SC's story sucks.
Oh, I thought the trailer was pretty good. Actually reminded me alot of Mass Effect. But considering how no one other than you has ever talked about the single-player campaign, I was wondering why they'd even bother with the effort. THat's not the selling point
According to Blizzard a lot of people played SC only for the single player mode. I'm very skeptical of this statement but clearly Blizzard thinks there are enough people who liked the campaign to willing to pay 3 times for the game (once for each campaign), so who knows.

Re: SC2 costs $100 million to make

PostPosted:Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:13 pm
by Anarky
Simple question, who is buying this day one?

I'm sure most of you will pick up the game eventually.

Re: SC2 costs $100 million to make

PostPosted:Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:27 pm
by Don
I'm going with my strategy of looking up the ending on Youtube and pretend I played the game. It takes a lot less time and money and generally saves the disappointment compared to actually playing the game.

Re: SC2 costs $100 million to make

PostPosted:Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:46 pm
by Tessian
I preordered it a while back so I'll have it. And yes, I'll be one of those people playing the SP campaign first cause I get eaten alive in RTS multiplayer games. Shrin and I's history with SC1 was all about vs AI :P

Re: SC2 costs $100 million to make

PostPosted:Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:06 pm
by Eric
Well apparently SC2 didn't cost $100,000,000 to make.

http://kotaku.com/5594862/starcraft-ii- ... on-to-make

Last week we reported on a Wall Street Journal article that tagged the development cost of StarCraft II at more than $100 million. According to Blizzard, it was a case of right price, wrong game.

How much did StarCraft cost to make? Blizzard hasn't said, nor is it planning to any time soon. What Blizzard will tell us however, is that the $100 million figure that appeared in the Wall Street Journal is not correct.

Apparently the WSJ got its games mixed up. The $100 million-plus figure in the article referred to the development and upkeep of World of Warcraft, its massively-multiplayer online game. The numbers are based off figures we reported on two years ago.

The Wall Street Journal has printed a retraction, and our original post on the subject has been updated as well.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

Activision Blizzard Inc. hasn't disclosed development costs for its "Starcraft II" videogame. A July 16 Technology article about the "Starcraft" sequel incorrectly said the company spent more than $100 million to develop the game; that figure referred to its "World of Warcraft" game.

There is no capital-gains tax this year on most investments held for more than a year for couples filing jointly with incomes of $68,000 or less. A chart accompanying a July 15 U.S. News article about the impending expiration of President George W. Bush's tax cuts incorrectly implied that the capital-gains rate is 15% for taxpayers of all income levels.

John Eastman is a professor at Chapman University Law School. A July 7 front-page article about the federal government's lawsuit seeking to block Arizona's immigration law incorrectly stated his title as dean, a post he formerly held.

The name of New York law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP was misspelled as Wilkie on second reference in a Thursday Marketplace article about lawyers resisting forced retirement.

A portrait by Linda Stojak is on display at Stephen Haller Gallery at 542 W. 26th St. The Culture City column on Monday about the Chelsea Art Walk incorrectly spelled the artist's name as Linda Stojack, and a photo caption incorrectly gave the gallery's address as 545 W. 26th St.

Re: SC2 costs $100 million to make

PostPosted:Fri Jul 23, 2010 5:13 pm
by Don
WoW probably costs $100M a year to run just for the upkeep. I'm not sure how someone could get Starcraft 2 confused with WoW, though.

Re: SC2 costs $100 million to make

PostPosted:Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:25 pm
by Shrinweck
I originally bought SC1 for the single player and only got into the multiplayer upon meeting Tessian and joining his guild back when I was 11 or 12 or some shit.

The main reason I pre-ordered SC2 was definitely for the campaign and the custom maps and stuff the community will hopefully be churning out.

Re: SC2 costs $100 million to make

PostPosted:Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:12 pm
by Anarky
I hope to see some badass Starship Troopers maps make a return :D

Re: SC2 costs $100 million to make

PostPosted:Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:19 pm
by Don
I noticed Blizzard said they're charge for professional custom maps and that stuff like DotA wouldn't meet their professional standards. Are you kidding me? DotA was only like 10 times better than anything Blizzard has ever made for a custom map. Even Firebat Madness was a lot better than anything Blizzard ever did on the custom end. Starcraft Fortress was actually a decent map but it's way too easy to rack up scores of 200 to 3 against a newbie and that's no fun either.

It'd be nice if they can enforce a way so that you're actually playing the original good map as opposed to soandso's totally not awesome version of the same one.

Re: SC2 costs $100 million to make

PostPosted:Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 am
by SineSwiper
Shrinweck wrote:The main reason I pre-ordered SC2 was definitely for the campaign and the custom maps and stuff the community will hopefully be churning out.
Yeah, I miss my Elements RPG that I modified for the first expansion.

Re: SC2 costs $100 million to make

PostPosted:Sat Jul 24, 2010 6:35 am
by Shrinweck
SineSwiper wrote:
Shrinweck wrote:The main reason I pre-ordered SC2 was definitely for the campaign and the custom maps and stuff the community will hopefully be churning out.
Elements RPG
YES

Re: SC2 costs $100 million to make

PostPosted:Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:53 am
by Louis
So the GameStop where I pre-order all my games is not having a midnight release. I guess its not that big of a deal. I just don't understand why they had a midnight release for NCAA Football 11 (which I picked up on X360) and not Starcraft II. I'm sure they had plenty of pre-orders for it. Guess I'll finish up the single player campaign on Modern Warfare 2 (I finally picked it up last Saturday).

Re: SC2 costs $100 million to make

PostPosted:Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:10 pm
by Eric
That's weird, every gamestop in my area is having a midnight release.

Re: SC2 costs $100 million to make

PostPosted:Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:21 pm
by Flip
I pre-downloaded the installer, of which im supposed to run tomorrow anytime after 10am pacific to pay and officially install the game. Glad i dont have to fight with the millions actually downloading it tomorrow, though.

Re: SC2 costs $100 million to make

PostPosted:Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:07 pm
by Eric

Re: SC2 costs $100 million to make

PostPosted:Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:43 pm
by Julius Seeker
I estimate ~1.5 million sales this week ; like Eric's Pachter friend, I base my analysis on a hunch =P

Re: SC2 costs $100 million to make

PostPosted:Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:02 pm
by SineSwiper
http://day9tv.blip.tv/

Interesting stuff.

Re: SC2 costs $100 million to make

PostPosted:Sat Aug 07, 2010 10:27 am
by Julius Seeker
Julius Seeker wrote:I estimate ~1.5 million sales this week ; like Eric's Pachter friend, I base my analysis on a hunch =P
1 PC Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty 1,341,583 according to VGchartz

About 90% of my estimation, not bad =)