Clan x86
General Forums => Gaming => Topic started by: Blaze on October 11, 2008, 09:35:03 pm
-
http://kotaku.com/5061980/starcraft-ii-single-player-is-a-trilogy
Damn you Blizzard, damn you.
-
That's really lame... :(
-
That's really lame... :(
Agreed.
-
That is blasphemy. I say we protest!
-
I didn't really see anywhere in there that said this would actually ship as three different games. I think the article meant that it's going to be just like starcraft was, either 3 seperate campaign experiences.
Maybe I'm wrong, though. (I can't see Blizzard doing this. They'd have to know people wouldn't like that.)
-
I didn't really see anywhere in there that said this would actually ship as three different games. I think the article meant that it's going to be just like starcraft was, either 3 seperate campaign experiences.
Maybe I'm wrong, though. (I can't see Blizzard doing this. They'd have to know people wouldn't like that.)
This is just quoting the original IGN article, which explicitly states it's three different product ships, with Terran coming first, but a single all races unlocked multiplayer. They are currently undecided on any advantages to having more than one version purchased for multiplayer.
I forsee a lot of people pissed off, but then again, Blizzard is releasing 30 campaign missions per release. The huge factor I think will be price. Maybe a reduction if other versions are purchased as well? If not, I don't see myself buying more than one copy, and just pirating the rest.
-
If not, I don't see myself buying more than one copy, and just pirating the rest.
-
I wonder how Blizzard plans on countering piracy. Perhaps individual CD-Key's for SC2T, SC2Z, and SC2P? If they use one for all three, people will simply buy the first and ISO the others.
-
If not, I don't see myself buying more than one copy, and just pirating the rest.
-
Heh, if I do end up playing this, I'll probably just wait until the battlechest comes out. :D
-
If Starcraft 2 lives up to expectations, I'd gladly shell out $150+ for all three versions. Starcraft is still a fun game to pull out every once and awhile (infact, I just had some pretty epic backstabs last week) -- if Starcraft 2 can carry on its legacy it'll be worth every penny to me. And I'm saying this as a person who pirates-first-and-buys-later, without the buying part happening very often (if ever, in '08 at least).
-
BULL-SHIT if they ship three separate product. I don't have that much $! :(
-
That's really gay, but I'll probably still end up paying for it.
-
BULL-SHIT if they ship three separate product. I don't have that much $! :(
Yes money is a huge factor for me as well being a lame college kid with little change to spare. If money is really that large of an issue once all 3 products have been shipped and on the market. If you are willing to wait a while I can almost guarantee that a battle chest of some sort will be released and you and get the games prob for about 60-80 compared to the expected 150
-
damn 150+ FOR A game? no thanks thats is what torrents are for.
-
damn 150+ FOR A game? no thanks thats is what torrents are for.
No, it's roughly $150 for three games. What you said is like saying the planned Assassin's Creed or Mass Effect trilogies are one game. Besides, from what I understand, each game will be like 30 missions long for single player. IIRC, that's about how long the original Starcraft was.
-
Yeah, that's a good point, drake.
I guess the only difference is (and I think it's largely psychological) is that they're coming out at the same time. Even if they had the content of three games, you'd expect that the bulk of the work put into the games lies in the intersection of their components (the AI, the graphics engine, unit design, etc) and that the campaign/story stuff was added in later.
Still, though, I don't think what they're doing is hugely unreasonable; it's just a bit frustrating.
Hey, drake, what are you doing for Thanksgiving? I'm probably going to be driving through Laramie on Saturday. Do you want to go grab something to eat while I'm there or something?
-
Yeah, that's a good point, drake.
I guess the only difference is (and I think it's largely psychological) is that they're coming out at the same time. Even if they had the content of three games, you'd expect that the bulk of the work put into the games lies in the intersection of their components (the AI, the graphics engine, unit design, etc) and that the campaign/story stuff was added in later.
Still, though, I don't think what they're doing is hugely unreasonable; it's just a bit frustrating.
Hey, drake, what are you doing for Thanksgiving? I'm probably going to be driving through Laramie on Saturday. Do you want to go grab something to eat while I'm there or something?
Oh, no, Starcraft 2 will have the initial game come out, followed in due time by the others. In fact, they might be expansion packs, and priced as such. Either way, they're not all coming out at once.
As for Thanksgiving, I'm going home (or a nuclear power plant; need to check), but I have classes until next Tuesday, so yeah, I'll be in town, and we can grab a bite to eat. Give me a call and we'll set something up.
-
Oh, no, Starcraft 2 will have the initial game come out, followed in due time by the others. In fact, they might be expansion packs, and priced as such. Either way, they're not all coming out at once.
Oh, gotcha.
Still, though, I can't imagine that the work they put into the expansion pack is more than recording audio, doing scripting, etc.
Oh well, they've gotta make monies somehow. After they started pulling $2.1 Billion/year from WoW I'm sure that profits from other sorts of games seems trivial. :)
As for Thanksgiving, I'm going home (or a nuclear power plant; need to check), but I have classes until next Tuesday, so yeah, I'll be in town, and we can grab a bite to eat. Give me a call and we'll set something up.
Cool! The plant sounds like fun. Maybe they'd let you roast a turkey over the reactor.
Alright, will do. I'll probably be driving through in the afternoon, but I might try to call you on Friday or something.
-
Too much campaign
-
The idea of three separate CD keys which, according to rumors, can be combined in any fashion, will make for an interesting enhancement to BNCS.
-
The idea of three separate CD keys which, according to rumors, can be combined in any fashion, will make for an interesting enhancement to BNCS.
There's already provisions in 0x51 for up to sizeof(DWORD) CD-Key's to be used.
Actually, that'd overflow the WORD in the packet header indicating the length of the packet, but you get my point.
EDIT -
I did the math cause I'm bored as hell. The SID_AUTH_CHECK packet with zero keys (think shareware) is 22 bytes, plus the header making it 26. sizeof(DWORD) (WORD being 16-bit, in the context of Battle.net) is 39321 (0x9999). So, (39321 - 26) / 36 = 1091.527777 repeating, allowing up to 1091 keys in the packet with it's current format.
Correct me if any of that's wrong.
-
There's already provisions in 0x51 for up to sizeof(DWORD) CD-Key's to be used.
I think you're confused about what "sizeof" does (because you just said that 4 CDKeys can be used).
-
I'm not sure I follow your math, iago. Joe's math wasn't off, just his procedure (definition and use of sizeof).
The maximum packet length is theoretically 0xFFFF; int((65535 - 26) / 36) = 1819 keys. However, I'm fairly sure (though I haven't tested it) that if you send a 64kB packet to a BNCS server, it will consider that a packet flood and IP ban you.
-
I'm not sure I follow your math, iago. Joe's math wasn't off, just his procedure (definition and use of sizeof).
I didn't do any math, I corrected Joe on his usage of sizeof().
And incidentally, maximum length of a Battle.net packet isn't 0xFFFF, it's 0x1320 or something like that.
-
You can only be disconnected for sending an overly large packet.
-
I'm not sure I follow your math, iago. Joe's math wasn't off, just his procedure (definition and use of sizeof).
I didn't do any math, I corrected Joe on his usage of sizeof().
And incidentally, maximum length of a Battle.net packet isn't 0xFFFF, it's 0x1320 or something like that.
Wait, sizeof(DWORD) (again, in 16-bit) would be 4, right? I messed up. I meant the max value of a DWORD.
And I thought 0x9999 was a weird number. Haha, haven't used hex in a while.
Btw, how do you figure that's the max size of a Battle.net packet? I was going off the fact that the protocol header can indicate a packet up to 0xFFFF bytes long (unless that overflows a WORD.. I never understood that).
-
Btw, how do you figure that's the max size of a Battle.net packet? I was going off the fact that the protocol header can indicate a packet up to 0xFFFF bytes long (unless that overflows a WORD.. I never understood that).
If you look in the game's code, it rejects packets over a certain size. I am pretty sure the server does too.
-
int((0x1320 - 26) / 32) = 152 keys :)
Perhaps it was a typo -- that they meant 4096 decimal (0x1000), but typed 4896 (0x1320) instead?
-
int((0x1320 - 26) / 32) = 152 keys :)
Perhaps it was a typo -- that they meant 4096 decimal (0x1000), but typed 4896 (0x1320) instead?
0x1320 was myself trying to remember code I saw years ago. Don't take it as gospel. :)