Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 51 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 22 Jul 2010 02:09:44 BDT
Wise Ol' Ben says:
I don't really understand why this game is billed as having a 45 rrp. I don't recall a PC game that has ever cost that much... I know we can buy it for 35 here on Amazon, but that's still about 15 more than most new PC releases. There's two other games that were pretty expensive... Sims 3 and Battlefield:BC2. Did all these games have really high development costs or something? Or are we just being ripped off by EA and in this case, Activision?

Posted on 22 Jul 2010 14:23:21 BDT
They know that people will pay it...

Posted on 22 Jul 2010 15:25:17 BDT
Judge says:
The other problem to remember is that the PC Games market has shrunk massively over the last 5 years but the cost of making a hit has risen a lot as there is so much competition from games which arrive for all platforms. In order for Activision to cover their development costs and make it worthwhile to bring games to market for PC and Mac they need to hike the retail price, it's a shame but it is the reality, just check their revenues and profits most games companies have suffered over the last few years. So unfortunately if we want great games with amazing graphics and content we will have to pay for it. I justify it to myself by dividing the cost of the game to the amount of hours spent playing it and then compare with most other things I could do - I always get value for money!!

Posted on 23 Jul 2010 09:13:28 BDT
Woody says:
Mr Oshea is right, it's this price because they know people will pay it Just like they do for the Call of duty games.

Glad I ordered it in March when Amazon had it at 24.99

Posted on 25 Jul 2010 22:12:12 BDT
Flamingstorm says:
I think the price increase is also linked to demand, as more are pre ordered and such it raises so people like me and Woody who ordered early get a cheaper price of 25 odd but people who wait just before get at a higher price due to the popularity of it

Posted on 27 Jul 2010 11:05:03 BDT
C. Jones says:
When a market shrinks only an idiot puts his prices up,as that makes it shrink even further. In truth the PC market has NOT shrunk, not when you consider China, India, etc are now buying massive amounts ofthe PC's they have formerly made for the West. it's funny, isn't it, how the cost of the actual PC has come tumbling down, but games keep getting more and more expensive. Then you have all the hassle of DRM and other copy-protections, the complete lack of any resale value, the fact that it is always PC users that get singled out for the hard time, when piracty is just as endemic on PS3 and Xbox. I for one am NOT paying over the odds for a sequel that uses an old Blizzard engine,no matter how fancy the 'cut-scenes' are!

Posted on 27 Jul 2010 12:52:23 BDT
Last edited by the author on 28 Jul 2010 11:41:38 BDT
You Know Who says:
The main reason why PC games are 20 are that they are multi-platform, and the PC version is not as popular as the Xbox or PS3 version. PC exclusives need to be more expensive to get a profit. Sounds wrong but its right. Thats why all new console games are around 40 new when first released but the PC version is only 25. A prime example of this is Sniper Ghost Warrior. It is a brand new game, and is 30 for Xbox and 20 for PC. I do admit that 35 is a bit much though, especially as it was 10 cheaper pre-order.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2010 13:14:19 BDT
I got it for 29.99 on pre order at another site, I consider that good value. 35 quid is way too much for a pc game I would not and did not buy it at that price.

Posted on 27 Jul 2010 14:14:10 BDT
Last edited by the author on 27 Jul 2010 14:16:24 BDT
D. Miller says:
agreed I preloaded this game with the insanely slow blizzard installer ready to buy this morning, but decided not to after seeing the price, I even tried up town to see if there was a good price and there is not, the guy in game tried to argue than it costs 100 million to make but forgot to mention that that 100 million also covers the other 2 games yet to be released which I'm guessing will cost the same amount, safe to say i will not buy this game until it is a reasonable price

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2010 21:13:27 BDT
N. Allen says:
Yep, and you can put money on this costing 20 in a month. I wouldn't mind if this was 35 for a full game containing all the races' stories and all units, etc were combined. Apparently (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this next bit) you'll be expected to pay 35 for the first of three parts of a game, and additional fees for units, etc via battlenet. In games like the Sims 3 you can understand (to a degree, if you like that sort of game) why you can purchase additional items, but with this I cannot see a point to it, other than naked profiteering. If these units are a game changer then they should be included in the game from the outset and if they make no difference then they shouldn't be in the game at all, or a free download.

It seems Blizzard really don't care about it's fanbase anymore.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2010 22:21:07 BDT
and don't forget COA (crappy online activation) every time you spend even more money on a map or unit!
if diablo 3 is like this i won't be getting that either

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jul 2010 01:17:10 BDT
Judge says:
I think you may have missed my point - I know that the PC market hasn't shrunk (it's bigger today than ever), it's the games market for PC's which has shrunk - people are playing more and more games but on console and handheld devices. In terms of markets like India and China the major problem is piracy ask anyone from the big publishers the percentage of legal games sales is minimal. I say again, gamers don't compare game pricing to cheap games relate to the time spent enjoying the experience. I totally agree if you can get through a game in an hour it's worth a few quid but if you play a game for 10-20 hours then surely it's worth the money. One thing I do agree with is that the inter scene hi value actor involvement who cares maybe spend that money on game play and reduce the cost - players care little for Sean Connery but huge amounts for the experience......Let's compromise!!

Posted on 28 Jul 2010 14:34:43 BDT
agreed - someting is only worth anything if you want it, that's why i don't mind an ongoing sub to wow or lotro - but sc2 is not worth 45/35 if it is 1/3 of a game and requires online access to play offline. 9.99 for each of the 3 eventual parts ok and less invasive protection
as for voice over actors/hd graphics etc, if the gameplay is any good you don't need them, if you want them watch a dvd

Posted on 29 Jul 2010 13:47:27 BDT
Teel says:
I think it's wrong to call SC 2: WoL one third of a game. The original Starcraft had in total 30 missions - this game also has 30 missions. The original game had an expansion that added new maps, campaign, and continued the story. This game's 2 upcoming expansion will also add new maps, campaign, and continue the story. If Blizzard made the game so that you had 3 games each one with 10/10/10 missions for each race, would you have considered it fair then?

Now what I really hope is that Activision will also consider the upcoming 2 games expansions, and price them accordingly. If not, then I'll join the disgruntled camp too.

Posted on 29 Jul 2010 14:14:23 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 29 Jul 2010 14:16:54 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jul 2010 18:07:43 BDT
that is the 45 question!
personally i would have preferred 10/10/10 and 2 reasonably priced expansions - i somehow doubt that is what will happen

Posted on 29 Jul 2010 20:44:42 BDT
J. Field says:
I agree with Mr. Chadwick. The 10/10/10 approach is much more balanced. Example: OK I know this is not going to be the case, but I wouldn't expect to receive my copy of Diablo 3 only to be told I have to fork out more money and wait longer for Blizzard to finish tweaking a few extra classes which have been announced and are expected in the product. I know that isn't entirely accurate as an analogy but that's how I feel about SC2.

I'm waiting to go home at the weekend where a copy of SC 2 is waiting for me, but as I seldom have time for online play these days and am sporadically in different places where internet access is not always a given, I'm a little sceptical about SC 2. I am a huge fan of the original and BW, primarily because of the fantastic story which evokes all sorts of youthful memories for me. I am keen to pick up the game to see how the SC canonical universe has changed, and what happens to good old Kerrigan and Raynor. Unfortunately for me, it looks like I will be harrassed into submission by all this online activation rubbish before long: such a shame the industry has to go this way, but with the effects of piracy, inflated pricing and having to wait for two expansions for the full story, Activision as a publisher has really given the finger to the old-time casual gamer like myself. And I'd have thought the extortion of Blizzard's brilliant products would stop at the WoW cash-cow. Likelihood is I am going to receive SC 2, eventually get through it when I'm connected to internet, only to be left panting for more and having to wait a few years (probably more knowing Blizzard) for any sort of continuation.

It's quite similar to HL2. Completed the original, great, they were relatively quick at getting the first 2 episodes out there (probably the last games I actually bought) though not quick enough, now the engine is rubbish, needs a drastic revamp by modern standards and who knows when we can actually find out what happens at the end of the story arc. All we have is a few concept pictures and I can hardly remember the awe and excitement which the first episodes inspired in me, which is totally eclipsed by CoD and other modern FPS experiences.

Anyway, I sincerely hope SC2 series doesn't go down the same route. To the greedy heads in Activison/Blizzard: Don't try and redefine the 'expansion pack' concept which Blizzard has done remarkably well with in the past (Frozen Throne, Brood War, Lord of Destruction), give us a complete and balanced game, experience and story or don't bother announcing it until it is close to release- though Blizzard could do well to bear that last point in mind anyway. There's hype...and then there's Duke Nukem Forever.

Posted on 29 Jul 2010 23:13:01 BDT
S. Becker says:
I'm not seeing, what all the mourning is about. The game hast 29 Mission (more than average for todays standards, Disciples eg has only 18), and full multiplayer mode with 3 factions, Achivements, Ledder/nonLedder games etc. So the so the Singleplayer mode only features one Faction, with 2 more to come (promised to be equely long), I don't care.
Lets face it, 2/3 of the compains is because its Blizzard who made the game, not say... EA, because most of their Modern Warfare titles were crappy, the costed the same, and there was way less complainging going on.

On a side note, I ordered it for 25, from germany cause.. 10 Bucks saved are 10 Bucks saved... now the german mail is still siting on my shipment, and I can listen to my friends (half of whom ordered here to) while the play... now, thats something to complain about, but not to Amazon or Blizz *ugly*

Posted on 30 Jul 2010 09:09:54 BDT
Its not just the game itelf thought people. You do haev to remember that Blizzard are operating no monthly fee's fro the game to be played online throught Battle.net. Most of the money generated from World of Warcraft (WOW) was actually used to continue running battle.net for their older gmaes such as Starcraft 1, Diablo 1,2 and Warcraft. Instead of paying monthly fee's of 5 to play Starcraft 2 online, I would prefer to pay the 45 to have unlimited access time to online gaming and constant updates.

Posted on 30 Jul 2010 15:27:44 BDT
bought a bottle of milk at sainsbury's yesterday - it was a third full and i have to go back later for the rest!
the money blizz are making from wow (no complaint there - the original game was a complete game and the expansions have served to make it even better) should have financed a complete game here for a reasonable sum
not sure what point s becker is making?
"Most of the money generated from World of Warcraft (WOW) was actually used to continue running battle.net for their older gmaes" - nope 95% of wow money goes into wow servers, maintenance and content

Posted on 30 Jul 2010 21:12:42 BDT
Midweek says:
Not everyone will pay it. I liked the original and thought I'd get this when it came out. Saw the price and decided to wait until it drops down to something reasonable like 25.
The industry complains about piracy (which I agree with hence me not just going and grabbing a pirate copy) but releasing a pc game with an rrp of 45 seems an absurd way of attacking the problem.

Posted on 31 Jul 2010 07:34:17 BDT
R. Nicklin says:
Look - if you dont like the price tag dont buy it - WAIT a few months and the price drops like a stone as retailers will have overstocked on the "product" and need to shift it off their shelves for Christmas stock. You have the power to control prices. If you, like sheep, buy a game on release day - or even worse queue outside a shop at 2.00am on release day then its your own fault. Manufacturers will always aim for a high return on release and if you all buy it at such high prices then this marketing ploy will continue and you will still be moaning when release 2.1 comes out.

Rant over

Posted on 31 Jul 2010 16:34:27 BDT
A. Whitehead says:
On Amazon and in most high street stores the game is retailing for 35, or exactly the same price as STARCRAFT in 1998 (or, for that matter, the INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE adventure game in 1989). In America where they are being charged significantly more than the 'standard' PC retail point (but then so did WARCRAFT 3 on release) and stores are sticking to it, I can understand it being an issue, but here, less so, especially as no-one I can find is actually selling the game at 45.

Part of the problem is that PC game prices have simply not risen in line with either inflation or the rising cost of producing games, whilst console games have. This has been great for us (I paid less for STARCRAFT II than I did for MONKEY ISLAND II in 1992) but is unsustainable, and has hurt PC games developers. Developers have gone from making stonking massive profits twenty or even ten years ago which they can pour into their next game to barely breaking even (STARCRAFT II will be an exception, but even so it will have to sell in the millions to make a profit on what Blizzard has put into it; seven years of active development is a massive commitment of time, money and manpower). As a result, the PC gaming price point is expected to be 30 for all eternity despite it being unsustainable for much longer. We have benefitted from cross-platform development recently, which has allowed the PC version to remain at a lower price, but in many cases this has come at the cost of shoddy ports (DRAGON AGE being an honourable exception). At some point we either have to suck it up and start paying more or move completely to online sales, where games can remain at lower-than-30 because of not having to have box or production costs.

Posted on 31 Jul 2010 20:22:16 BDT
N. Allen says:
Well, after me complaining about the price earlier, I had a message from two friends absolutely RAVING about this game. Due to this I buckled and bought it from Amazon on Friday at 3pm. 11am today it arrived. 12pm I started playing it, and at 6pm I realised the day had gone!

I still feel the game is overpriced. Despite how much I LOVE this game, and appreciate all the content, I do in all seriousness believe that 35 is too much for a PC game. A console game perhaps, but on a PC I'd expect it to be cheaper.

Anyway, with that in mind I whole heartedly recommend this game for anyone to buy. It's like Dawn of war 2, with more of a DOW1 feel about it, crossed with C&C3 and has an inbetween section where you can upgrade/research, etc that feels like a Mass Effect 2 style, although not animated fully like that. I have to say I haven't enjoyed playing a single player game like this for a long time. Since C&C3 infact.

Posted on 1 Aug 2010 13:42:40 BDT
S.D says:
I'm suprised it wasn't more expensive judging by the long, long, long list of credits at the end.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  36
Total posts:  51
Initial post:  22 Jul 2010
Latest post:  5 Mar 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty (Mac/PC DVD-ROM)
Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty (Mac/PC DVD-ROM) by Blizzard (Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, Windows XP)
4.1 out of 5 stars   (244)