Blizzard to Rape Your Wallet


Recommended Posts

I'm not surprised, kinda saw it coming. Valve started it with Half-Life 2 and it was very successful, so why wouldn't Blizzard wanna piece of the action? :p Personally I got no problem with it, providing the pricing is good (i.e. each "episode" doesn't cost the same amount as a full game, cause no way would I shell out AU$70 to AU$99.95 per episode - that would be AU$210/~AU$299 for a game! I don't think so...)

The problem is, that this isnt an episode in the sense that you've defined; Its cutting the gameplay into three pieces. This isnt just making a big story and telling it via three episides.. as each episode is now an entirely different experience due to the races. Which is bad, as some people love playing Zerg (or Protoss/Terran) but now cant until there 'episode' is released etc.

Hei guys i have this computer ... but i am seeling the cpu, you can play starcraft 2 but then if you need the mobo, ram and what not let me know :D ... stupid, just stupid ... while 3 disks give a more in-depth story, you have to pay more ... then again, it might be worth it ... reamains to be seen

Although I can see their reason in doing it, I'm not happy. It has always been released with all three campaigns, so it should continue to be doing so. There is a reason why I avoided WoW.

Scirwode

this is utter crap, plain and simple.

No one would buy C&C if u had to buy each single player faction singly. No one would buy Red Alert 2 either if it did the same thing.

Half lifes episodes are only like 20 bucks each. If blizzard makes their game 20 bucks each, then maybe, cause 60 for a really good game is a reasonable price. But if they charge anymore for each, its robbery. Would be like if valve charged people in team fortress 2 to play as different classes. 5 bucks a class on top of purchasing the game... it wouldnt fly to well.. and this shouldnt either, if its not fairly priced.... lol

this is utter crap, plain and simple.

No one would buy C&C if u had to buy each single player faction singly. No one would buy Red Alert 2 either if it did the same thing.

Half lifes episodes are only like 20 bucks each. If blizzard makes their game 20 bucks each, then maybe, cause 60 for a really good game is a reasonable price. But if they charge anymore for each, its robbery. Would be like if valve charged people in team fortress 2 to play as different classes. 5 bucks a class on top of purchasing the game... it wouldnt fly to well.. and this shouldnt either, if its not fairly priced.... lol

If these ###### of Blizzard make each release $50 bucks will be a completely rape, $20 bucks will be all right.

Hahaha, yeah, who didn't see that coming :(

I didn't like Starcraft. I'm hoping Blizz don't pull this on Diablo 3 :-\

Hopefully not. Otherwise (N)

Utter crap. Three separate games? Give me a break!!!!!! An no I will not think of them as expansion packs. I'll think of it as what I should have gotten with ONE purchase.

+1

Soooo did anyone actually watch the panel when this was announced? They said they had 3 options.

1. Release 3 campigns that didn't feel epic

2. Create and release each campaign individually but have them feel each like a standalone product

3. Create all 3 epic campaigns in the single product but delay the product significantly

Rob Pardo asked the crowd which one they'd prefer, everyone cheered at 2 and that's when he announced that that's what they had chosen.

All this "Blizzard falling from grace" is funny though.

Well the thing everyone liked about SC1 was that there WAS 3 Factions. Now SC2 is seperated how the heck do you play online? Like you obviously can only play Terran but the other 2?

On possibly a good point, Blizzard could actually add factions to the three, thus, making SC2 very very big. who knows? Thoughts?

Well the thing everyone liked about SC1 was that there WAS 3 Factions. Now SC2 is seperated how the heck do you play online? Like you obviously can only play Terran but the other 2?

No...You can play all 3 online...

But you have to pay for the 3 separate offline campaigns.

I think.

if we accept this, we will be just allowing other companies to follow suit. Our RPGs will no longer be in full game format, but because it will take 80 hours to beat, they will sell it to us as 3 different acts. I can see it now. Oh the horror. Sooooo, think console gamers would accept this? having to buy multiple copies of their games just to see the other side of the story... stupid plain and simple.

Blizzard is/was best game company around too~ haven't decided yet if I will even buy SC2 as I haven't played the original in years, but this is just a dick move. Whoever cheered for this in the audience is retarded...SC1's campaign sucked (imo) mainly because it was very drawn out and got boring halfway through each race. How do you suppose they have fixed that issue? There's only so many elements you can introduce to the story per mission before it gets repetitive.

It's a multiplayer game. That's where Starcraft was meant to shine. Let it continue to be that way with SC2 imo.

This would only be acceptable if you only got 1 campaign + multiplayer for say, $50 and then each additional campaign would cost like $10-15 and be released when it's done.

Lots of people will just want the multiplayer, and that way we don't have to buy the multiplayer component each time.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Are you going to do performance benchmarks comparing all states? I'd be interested in seeing that in the next "part".
    • My father still uses a programme written in dbase3. Still manages to work with a little help from dosbox. 
    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      rolfus earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      93
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      78
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!