Starcraft II: Too Much?

Is Blizzard only about the benjamins now?

Unless you’re a PC gamer who has lived under a rock for the past ten years, then chances are you’ve heard of StarCraft – one of the most popular and influential strategy titles of all time. You’ve probably heard even more concerning StarCraft’s developer Blizzard Entertainment, who are responsible for the likes of the WarCraft strategy franchise, Diablo franchise, and the behemoth known as World of WarCraft.

Needless to say, Blizzard isn’t exactly a little guy in the mind of most PC gamers. I’ll admit, I am a big fan of Blizzard. I have enjoyed every one of their games that I have played since the release of WarCraft II. Blizzard just seems to understand the requirements for a fun game formula to an extent which very few other developers can replicate. The original StarCraft was most renowned for their incredible triangular balance between the three playable factions. Additionally, StarCraft had that “easy to learn, difficult to master” feeling of any great game. Paired with charming graphics and a kickass soundtrack, as well as one of the most engrossing RTS campaigns to date, it really was quite a formula for success.

Now fast-forward to 2009. StarCraft II is on the horizon, but not everyone is perfectly happy. Back in October 2008, Blizzard announced that the game would be split into three separate retail parts; each installment would contain an entire full-featured campaign for one of the three playable factions, as well as add additional multiplayer maps and units to the game. While Blizzard has not announced any official pricing plan for the StarCraft II trilogy, many fans believe that Blizzard will demand a full fifty dollar price tag for each installment.

More recently, Blizzard announced that StarCraft II, along with the upcoming Diablo III, will not have any LAN capability. Blizzard cites various reasons for the removal of LAN play, most notably stats tracking, and to combat piracy. Many people purchased both StarCraft and Diablo II for the multiplayer components exclusively. Pirates, with the assistance of virtual networking software often exploited LAN functionality to maintain online multiplayer access. However, despite Blizzard’s reasoning, many fans are up in arms over the removal of LAN play. Why on Earth would Blizzard, a company that has always been so extremely focused on the end-user’s experience, stab the players in the back like this? Especially when it’s taken into consideration that the original StarCraft allowed you to literally create “spawn” copies of your installation, which could only be played over a LAN, for the sole purpose of encouraging LAN play and ease of use.

Blizzard vs. LAN: Guess who won?

The general tone I got from fan feedback is a pretty hostile one. “All Blizzard cares about anymore is money!” seems to be the general consensus. Isn’t that really what any business cares about? Just as I explained in my Left 4 Dead 2 article, businesses aren’t here to cuddle you and sing you lullabies. They are here to make money, simple as that. And even then, Blizzard is one of the very few developers I actually feel I’m getting my money’s worth. I have no issue putting down fifty dollars per StarCraft II installment, simply because I know I’m getting fantastic quality for each purchase. Unlike various other developers, Blizzard has a commitment to their games unparalleled in the industry. I would much rather pay a little more in the long run (albeit graciously spread out) for the most compelling game, story and campaign to be crafted by the folks at Blizzard, than I would to save a couple bucks and play a consolidated game that doesn’t live up to Blizzard’s vision. I trust Blizzard, because they haven’t let me down yet.

Even then, I encourage people not to make rash judgments on Blizzard or StarCraft II just yet; especially concerning the pricing aspect of the three installments. While Blizzard has made no official statement of the pricing of each release, many fans seem convinced that simply because they mention each expansion is a full retail product, that each will come with a full retail price tag. Personally, I do not see Blizzard going this route. Of course, at this point and time it’s all guesswork. I just encourage you not to swear off Blizzard just yet, especially considering the amount of commitment and loyalty they have brought to PC gamers with all of their titles.

Admittedly, the loss of LAN play is rather disappointing, although I cannot say I’m surprised. It seems as if most gamers sweep piracy under the rug and pretend it’s not there, but the truth is that it is there, and it is a problem – especially for AAA titles which garner a lot of attention, such as those released by Blizzard. How often do you use LAN play, anyway? What was the last recent game you purchased based solely off whether or not it LAN capability? For the majority of gamers my guess is that LAN functionality was rarely, if ever, used. Blizzard is catering to such a large audience, that no matter what they add or remove it will upset people, in some way, somehow. There is no way for them to get around this, and honestly, it’s kind of sad to see people swearing off Blizzard already when the game is still many months away from release.

My personal stance is a pretty stoic one: just wait and see. I remain neutrally optimistic about both StarCraft II and Diablo III. I really do think that splitting StarCraft II up could potentially give the end-user a more satisfying gaming experience, even if that raises the overall price of the product. The loss of LAN functionality is admittedly disheartening, but not enough to make me forget my many hours of enjoyable gaming bliss with StarCraft. At times like these, PC gamers really have to be supportive of the very few PC-centric developers we have left. Amongst the few North American developers, Blizzard stands out as a beacon for quality and genuinely fun entertainment, and as long as they continue to do so, this gamer will buy into whatever wacky pricing scheme or anti-piracy measures they may throw at us.