Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

StarCraft II Delayed Until 2010

Soulskill posted about 5 years ago | from the nobody-likes-a-rush dept.

Real Time Strategy (Games) 453

Blizzard has just announced that StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty won't be released this year. From their announcement: "Over the past couple of weeks, it has become clear that it will take longer than expected to prepare the new Battle.net for the launch of the game. The upgraded Battle.net is an integral part of the StarCraft II experience and will be an essential part of all of our games moving forward. This extra development time will be critical to help us realize our vision for the service. ... As we work to make Battle.net the premier online gaming destination, we'll also continue to polish and refine StarCraft II, and we look forward to delivering a real-time strategy gaming experience worthy of the series' legacy in the first half of 2010."

cancel ×

453 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Duke Nuked 'em? (4, Funny)

mrmeval (662166) | about 5 years ago | (#28963243)

I'm just sayin'.

Not really (4, Insightful)

Hojima (1228978) | about 5 years ago | (#28963511)

Don't forget they've been bought out, so they're not the Blizzard they used to be. It could be that "Blizzard" is working on some DRM which has really been disguised as Battle.net (i.e. you have to connect to it to verify your installation). Watch your step "Blizzard", because it wont be hard for hackers to offer the LAN support you were so quick to deny your fans, nor will it be difficult to set up a pirate server that out-competes the "wonderful experience" battle.net might have in store.

Re:Not really (2, Insightful)

oenone.ablaze (1133385) | about 5 years ago | (#28963715)

I wouldn't call myself pro-DRM, but I'm just glad that battle.net has remained free--you know they could charge a nominal fee and people would still be all over it. As a paying customer with a broadband connection, I'm willing to live without LAN play so that Blizzard makes the money I'm sure they deserve. Modern broadband ensures that there's essentially no bandwidth impediment to everyone using battle.net in the same location anymore (as others have pointed out).

Re:Not really (3)

peragrin (659227) | about 5 years ago | (#28963907)

You say that until at 6pm one evening your ISP suddenly starts throttling your net connection to "imrpove" customer service. And you either lag out of a game, or get your arse kicked because you can no longer defend your self.

Re:Not really (4, Informative)

PotatoFarmer (1250696) | about 5 years ago | (#28963747)

Don't forget that Blizzard is notorious for delaying games until they feel they're done. Who knows, maybe the extra time will give them a chance to rethink the idiotic exclusion of LAN play (though I'm not holding my breath on that one).

Re:Not really (2, Insightful)

Flipao (903929) | about 5 years ago | (#28963785)

Blizzard have always said they would never compromise the quality of their games, I can't think of a single one of their titles that has not been delayed, going back as far as WoW, Warcraft III, Diablo II, Starcraft, etc..

Re:Not really (4, Interesting)

Toonol (1057698) | about 5 years ago | (#28963819)

This is also a good opportunity for a competitor. Starcraft massively dominates competitive gaming in the RTS genre. Nothing else comes close. I suspect Blizzard's ridiculous stripping out of the LAN play feature is partly to ensure no large Starcraft 2 event can happen without Blizzard's active participation and/or approval.

Blizzard right now reminds me of Sony three years ago. Drunk with success, and making every wrong decision.

Re:Not really (3, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | about 5 years ago | (#28964065)

OR... The simple fact LAN Parties of Out of date. Sorry. Why don't you bitch about the lack of Null Modem features that has been around for years.
Back in dem days, Of StarCraft I most people had dial up, so Lan Parties were a good idea.... Now it is not. It is not evil, It is just removing a features that only a small portion of people will use.

Re:Not really (1)

Cornflake917 (515940) | about 5 years ago | (#28963991)

Don't forget they've been bought out, so they're not the Blizzard they used to be.

How the hell do you know that Blizzard has changed from the merger? Can we not make assumptions about Blizzard until they actually release a new game, please?

nor will it be difficult to set up a pirate server that out-competes the "wonderful experience" battle.net might have in store.

You mean like bnetd? Yeah I'm sure a kid running a server out of his mom's basement will out-compete a billion dollar company. Not to mention Blizzard has the legal power to shut down anything remotely competitive in a heartbeat.

No (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#28963575)

Duke Nukem has been in the works for 12 years now. SC2 was announced not even a year ago.

Re:No (1)

P0ltergeist333 (1473899) | about 5 years ago | (#28963713)

SC2 was first announced May 2007... but I'd still agree with you that there is absolutely NO comparison. Blizzard has a long history of pushing back release dates in order to push out extremely polished (especially compared to it's competitors) products. How the merger affects things is yet to be seen.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28963719)

Uh no, you're wrong, try May 2007 as the announcement date.

Worth the wait. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28963283)

Good things take time to make.

Re:Worth the wait. (4, Interesting)

Kagura (843695) | about 5 years ago | (#28963361)

Just give me Diablo 3 in the meantime.

Re:Worth the wait. (1)

A. B3ttik (1344591) | about 5 years ago | (#28963447)

+5 Hell yes.

Re:Worth the wait. (5, Funny)

xouumalperxe (815707) | about 5 years ago | (#28963965)

I'm afraid you'll need to complete "+3 Nightmare yes" first

Re:Worth the wait. (2, Interesting)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | about 5 years ago | (#28963607)

Good luck on that. They announced SCII in may 2007, and it's still a minimum of 4 months out.

They didn't announce D3 until July '08...I'd be surprised if they started looking for Diablo beta testers before the end of the year.

Re:Worth the wait. (1)

Rayeth (1335201) | about 5 years ago | (#28963721)

lol, beta testers in '09. D3 won't start into beta until 2010 at the earliest. I would be the game doesn't hit shelves until 2011 or 2012.

Re:Worth the wait. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28964041)

Doubtful. D3 will also have no LAN play, and rely on BattleNet, according to the desires of the geniuses at Blizzard.
I look forward to seeing what they put out, but without LAN, I won't pay more than $10 for it.

Re:Worth the wait. (2)

polyomninym (648843) | about 5 years ago | (#28963371)

Yeah, good things do take time to make, but it takes even longer to ruin things with DRM implementations. Remember what Blizzard has basically said: No more LAN parties. Oh and even if you have your friends over, your game will lag by all of you having to use Battlenet from one connection:(

Re:Worth the wait. (0, Troll)

Kagura (843695) | about 5 years ago | (#28963405)

1996 called. It wants its internet back.

Re:Worth the wait. (1)

EvanED (569694) | about 5 years ago | (#28963635)

Oh and even if you have your friends over, your game will lag by all of you having to use Battlenet from one connection

This isn't a necessary conclusion of that decision. It's entirely possible that Battle.Net will mediate the connection then drop out; for LAN connections, this could mean it's still kept local. Blizzard already uses P2P for the Blizzard downloader for instance.

Re:Worth the wait. (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 5 years ago | (#28963643)

Oh and even if you have your friends over, your game will lag by all of you having to use Battlenet from one connection:(

Sure, if you're connection is an ISDN line. Anyone with a modern cable or DSL connection that ranges in the 5-6mbit range isn't going to see this lag you speak of.

Re:Worth the wait. (1)

bnenning (58349) | about 5 years ago | (#28963847)

Anyone with a modern cable or DSL connection that ranges in the 5-6mbit range isn't going to see this lag you speak of.

Latency, not bandwidth.

Re:Worth the wait. (4, Informative)

Toonol (1057698) | about 5 years ago | (#28963905)

You're going from under 10 millisecond pings for an internal network, to an external site that very possibly (depending on internet weather) could have pings of a 50-100 milliseconds or more. It doesn't matter what the size of the pipe into your basement is; occasionally you get hangups and stalls when your leave your local network.

Re:Worth the wait. (1)

koh (124962) | about 5 years ago | (#28963833)

Completely agree with parent. The game is done, now they just need more time to implement corporate requirements like anti-piracy-does-not-work software and "dynamic ads" engines. Or something. Anyway, to me, no LAN, no buy.

Re:Worth the wait. (1)

phlegmboy (1067452) | about 5 years ago | (#28963493)

So what is Blizzard's excuse then?

Re:Worth the wait. (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | about 5 years ago | (#28963695)

Yes, but usually in IT you want them to take "IT Time", not "Redwood Forestry time".

The 1990s Called... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28963285)

This would be devastating news if it was still the 1990s...

Re:The 1990s Called... (5, Funny)

SomeJoel (1061138) | about 5 years ago | (#28963407)

This would be devastating news if it was still the 1990s...

That's true, a release date of 2010 would be over 10 years away!

LAN play (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28963295)

So not only are they removing the ability to play LAN games, it's actually delayed the release of the game.

Re:LAN play (4, Interesting)

Rand310 (264407) | about 5 years ago | (#28963631)

Battle.net will be an integral part of the StarCraft II experience and will be an essential part of all of our games moving forward

Well Blizzard, I think you just died. It's amazing. As a kid on a Mac there was a heyday when in a few short years Blizzard put out Warcraft, Warcraft II, Starcraft, Diablo, Diablo II. When Bungie put out the Marathon series, the Myth series, and then Oni. When Sid Meyer put out SimCity, SimCity 2000, SimCity 3000. And then they all shuttered up, sold-out, and then died of money-poisoning.

Bungie's awesome demo of Halo got it swallowed up by MS, and a decade later there are no more Mac games of any repute. Blizzard had rumors of another Starcraft and everyone looked forward to a new Warcraft and Diablo - but the money-leech WoW came out and stopped those promising ideas cold. Sid, who's always had interesting ideas got caught up in that The Sims, that other massive money making scheme, and put out nothing of interest again until, like salt on a wound, a castrated Spore.

WTF. I think the only exception to these innovative Mac gaming companies going corporate at the expense of their initial fans is Ambrosia Software of Escape Velocity fame. Oh the days...

Re:LAN play (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28963705)

When Sid Meyer put out SimCity, SimCity 2000, SimCity 3000. ... Sid, who's always had interesting ideas got caught up in that The Sims, that other massive money making scheme, and put out nothing of interest again until, like salt on a wound, a castrated Spore.

Who the hell is this Sid Meyer person, and what does he have to do with Will Wright's Sim series?

Re:LAN play (1)

Rand310 (264407) | about 5 years ago | (#28963977)

Typing fast with from memory. Bad to do on Slashdot... SidMeier did Civilization (the other 'sim' series). I meant Wil Wright.

Re:LAN play (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28963981)

Little known fact: In the late 1980s, Will Wright secretly wrote a program called SimGameDesignGuru which accurately simulated a visionary computer games designer. Will Wright created a character named Sid Meyer, named in honor of visionary Civilization designer Sid Meier, and the artificial intelligence "Sid Meyer" went on to create a number of popular and critically acclaimed game franchises, for all of which Will Wright has taken credit.

Re:LAN play (1)

am 2k (217885) | about 5 years ago | (#28963805)

Well, Ambrosia Software hasn't seen much activity lately... I think the last real noteworthy thing from them happened ten years ago, which is like two lifetimes ago in the computing world.

I think the real problem is that developing games is much more labor-intensive nowadays. You can't just whip up four programmers and a visual designer and deliver a AAA-game in half a year any more. You need 200+ employees working on it fulltime (3D modellers, animation artists, programmers, script writers, producers, game designers, etc etc) and a LOT of time.

Re:LAN play (2, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | about 5 years ago | (#28964003)

You mean Wil Wright, but point taken. I'll also reinforce that with "Spore", the craptitude and suckiness of which made the 'a Wil Wright Game!' banner on any future EA product completely worthless. Corporate types need to understand that the value of a creative person is lost if they attempt to explicitly control what that person creates. It doesn't take much crap to ruin the good value of a reputation.

More minerals? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28963297)

Perhaps if they had tasked more drones with mining minerals in the first place, this whole fiasco could have been avoided.

Re:More minerals? (5, Insightful)

oenone.ablaze (1133385) | about 5 years ago | (#28963753)

It's no use, they require more vespene gas.

Re:More minerals? (1)

cuantar (897695) | about 5 years ago | (#28964019)

No, what they really need is more pylons.

Re:More minerals? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28963961)

Yes, more minerals, less vespene gas.

*sniff* (3, Insightful)

grumpygrodyguy (603716) | about 5 years ago | (#28963303)

This is bad news...for Diablo fans =(

In other words... (5, Insightful)

Kokuyo (549451) | about 5 years ago | (#28963307)

External factors delay the release of the game, not the game's state itself. Furthermore, they will continue to develop the game until those external requirements are met.

Dare we hope for the first truly polished, and moderately bug-free game release in a decade?

Re:In other words... (2, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | about 5 years ago | (#28963531)

Nah, it's only been like 7 years since they released Warcraft III.

Seriously. This is Blizzard; they annoy me sometimes, but they're noted for their relatively bug-free releases...The "buggiest" game they ever released was WoW, and the "bug" there was that a zillion people wanted to play, and repeatedly crashed all the servers.

Re:In other words... (2, Interesting)

St.Creed (853824) | about 5 years ago | (#28963609)

Since when have Blizzard releases been full of bugs? The *one* reason my friends and I buy everything they ship is because they release only decent, near bugfree games. Okay, you can dislike the content. But it is solid content, even if not your cup of tea.

Remember, releasing games that need several patches before you can play without crashing was common use before Blizzard demonstrated that releasing good games (even with internet patching available) is a sound business policy. The same with MMO's. Every beta I participated in before WoW, was a bugfest of biblical proportions. Enter WoW, with a nigh bugfree beta. *sold*.

I mean, upon its release EVE Online had a tutorial that left you floating in space, all lost and lonely, if you made a "wrong" move. The freaking *starting tutorial* just *killed* you when you made a mistake. Also, the day before they released the game they implemented a massive patch, that reactivated lots of already fixed bugs again - a clear hint about problems with their sourcecode control system. This was a few weeks before the WoW beta. It was such a relief to play a *stable* game for a change, I was sold on WoW right then and there.

Re:In other words... (0)

megamerican (1073936) | about 5 years ago | (#28963839)

The must have finally realized that bnet is awful and needs to be completely overhauled.

Re:In other words... (1)

ChinggisK (1133009) | about 5 years ago | (#28963993)

You say that like you're of the opinion of that Blizzard releases buggy, unpolished games. I'm pretty sure that's exactly the opposite of what they're known for.

And no, I don't play WoW.

Just build in multiplayer over lan. (1, Insightful)

santax (1541065) | about 5 years ago | (#28963323)

We really don't need battlenet. I've seen how that works with DRM on music. And games are bit to expensive to throw away when blizz decides to go bankrubt or that holding battlenet online becomes to expensive.

Re:Just build in multiplayer over lan. (2, Interesting)

medv4380 (1604309) | about 5 years ago | (#28963473)

Really?

Battle.net is kinda critical in this gaming environment. Yes single player is important and lan play is too, but without being able to compete in some organized way online lan functions are kinda pointless. Not everyone has a house capable of holding 5v5 games unless you want to have smelly gamers packed in like sardines, and I don't like playing against the same 5 twits every time I want to play. Good skills come from being challenged by a wide variety of people.

I guess we just have to wait. Too bad I'm going to have to buy the game 3 times to play all 3 types of races and get all the game content.

Re:Just build in multiplayer over lan. (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#28963601)

Not everyone has a house capable of holding 5v5 games unless you want to have smelly gamers packed in like sardines...

Try a VPN.

Re:Just build in multiplayer over lan. (4, Insightful)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | about 5 years ago | (#28963909)

At that point you're just refusing to use Battlenet out of stubborness.

Nah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28963329)

... they're probably just working on a 'proprietary in-house solution' that will finally make sure no one will ever, ever pirate it.

Why not "polish and refine"... (5, Interesting)

chrylis (262281) | about 5 years ago | (#28963341)

by unremoving LAN play?

Re:Why not "polish and refine"... (1)

Anonymous Cowar (1608865) | about 5 years ago | (#28963429)

Yeah, i was thinking "Gee, that'll give them MORE than enough time to implement lan play." The only reason for not implementing it now is good old fashioned greed.

Re:Why not "polish and refine"... (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | about 5 years ago | (#28963481)

They claim it's to fight piracy.

therefore, to combat child pornography, I'll be pirating StarCraft II.

Re:Why not "polish and refine"... (1)

Anonymous Cowar (1608865) | about 5 years ago | (#28963615)

fighting piracy = greed, although I wouldn't be surprised if it takes a pirated version of scII to play over the lan, which would eventually make the pirated copy the de-facto version for tournament play. (I.E. someone might come up with a shell wrapper that directs scII to look for a lan server rather than battle.net)

Re:Why not "polish and refine"... (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | about 5 years ago | (#28963771)

Yeah joking aside I'll buy a copy LAN play or not, but I imagine I'll have to end up pirating a copy if I want full features. I've bought something like three copies of StarCraft over the years. I could have just repirated it but it's Blizzard.

Still, I'm sorry to see this. Blizzard has always seemed to have a tacit agreement with players where they don't even try to stop pirate single player/LAN (think the CD keys for their earlier games, where it would take 01234567890123), but then rule battle.net with an iron fist.

Gone are the days of LAN parties I guess; I don't want to futz with bnet just to play multiplayer. Not to mention when support ends down the road.

Of course, I will say that when the product you pay money for is inferior to the one you don't, then your business model is flawed. Perhaps it's time to accept that you have to fight piracy with market forces, not by buying laws.

Re:Why not "polish and refine"... (0, Flamebait)

Kurusuki (1049294) | about 5 years ago | (#28963809)

Locking your door at night is greedy preventing all those less fortunate homeless people from eating your food, sleeping on your couch, and stealing your TV. A publicly traded company has an obligation to do what's best for the company. It does not, however, have an obligation to support a mode of play most commonly associated with unauthorized copies of the game. Communist pig

Re:Why not "polish and refine"... (1)

Toonol (1057698) | about 5 years ago | (#28964095)

Your mistake is assuming that this is what's best for the company. It's a VERY common mistake companies make... they lock their product down, streamline, take control of the whole experience, move consumers into preferred channels (and every other buzzphrase)... and profit maximize themselves straight to bankruptcy.

Re:Why not "polish and refine"... (1)

apoc.famine (621563) | about 5 years ago | (#28963577)

I came on here to post the same thing. In addition, had they included it at the onset, they could have released on time, and people could have actually played multiplayer while waiting for the next installment of battlecrap.

Not surprising (1)

KingPin27 (1290730) | about 5 years ago | (#28963365)

Perhaps this is just another clever ploy of N.K to get the rest of the world very very angry.

shocked, just shocked (3, Funny)

davemarchevsky (1600015) | about 5 years ago | (#28963379)

But seriously, who didn't see this one coming?

Re:shocked, just shocked (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#28963487)

Why would we have seen it coming? The Christmas rush would have made a great release time.

Re:shocked, just shocked (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28964097)

I don't think Blizzard has ever released for Christmas, despite having announced they would have games ready for it. They have always released at the beginning of the year.

Re:shocked, just shocked (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28964113)

When they release it during the Christmas rush next year, it will be just as good.

This does not bode well... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28963391)

South Korea just exploded with rage. This just might push them over the edge and they will finally take out North Korea.

Maybe... (1)

Luxusleben (808718) | about 5 years ago | (#28963411)

... they just need the dust to settle on that, whatchamacallit, lan play debacle?
I mean, the battle.net servers are going to fail upon launch anyway... just as with sc1.

GIVE US LAN BACK (5, Insightful)

jpedlow (1154099) | about 5 years ago | (#28963425)

LAN PLAY is one of the things that helped make SC1 awesome, either 12 carriers coming down on an in-room opponent's settlement with "...what the...WHAT THE HELL...OH GOD" to early game 'ling rush with "..YOU CHEEP BASTARD THATS NOT FUNNY"....LAN play was amazing. Now if I'm going to have an 8 man LAN in my garage, it's all gotta go through battlenet, sucking up my bandwidth? Screw you blizzard. You've got another 2 quarters now, give us LAN play.

Re:GIVE US LAN BACK (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 5 years ago | (#28963489)

FYI: Blizzard's revenue model doesn't give a shit about your bandwidth availability.

Re:GIVE US LAN BACK (1)

Scragglykat (1185337) | about 5 years ago | (#28963627)

Yes, fighting piracy has now mandated that you seclude yourself in your room alone and play with online players that you may or may not know, using voice over IP communications to get less than ideal messages from your friends or "friends" online about how you are cheating, or being an anus, or whatever you plan to do to them. Piracy is a much more serious issue than internet addiction. Speaking of internet addiction, perhaps Blizzard is just using Battle.net to limit the amount of time Chinese citizens can play Star Craft II... if they play for too long, they will get thrown into a death camp. That would definitely lighten the load on Blizzard's servers...

Re:GIVE US LAN BACK (1)

gnupun (752725) | about 5 years ago | (#28963647)

True, but LAN is superfast and more fun. For a company that cares so much about quality and game experience, they are basically willing to shaft their own game to ensure more revenue.

Re:GIVE US LAN BACK (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#28963661)

It should. No LAN play means I can only play the campaigns and against AI. I don't especially like either.

Re:GIVE US LAN BACK (1)

gbarules2999 (1440265) | about 5 years ago | (#28963853)

If Battle.net is sucking up all of his bandwidth, someone can't be playing WoW after they died two minutes into an hour long match.

Re:GIVE US LAN BACK (1)

jpedlow (1154099) | about 5 years ago | (#28963781)

Exactly, there's a lot to be said about playing WITH your friends in the same room, not with someone you've never met, while talking to them on vent/ts/voip.....boring...while on the other hand you could be unleashing unholy death upon your friends who are in the same room as you and laughing in an evil manner. It's more fun in person! :)

Re:GIVE US LAN BACK (2, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | about 5 years ago | (#28963843)

Now if I'm going to have an 8 man LAN in my garage, it's all gotta go through battlenet, sucking up my bandwidth?

That's not a necessary conclusion. Blizzard already uses P2P stuff for, e.g., the Blizzard downloader; it's very possible that Battle.Net will only mediate such connections at the beginning, then drop out.

From my chair, Blizzard would be utterly stupid to require that LAN play go through their servers. Starcraft 1, a decade-plus-old-game, was the 10th best-selling PC game in June [vgchartz.com] in the US. I'm sure that the SC2 announcements have helped over the past months, but one of the main reasons it has such holding power is that it's such a popular competition game. Look at South Korea's pro gamers.

You think that Jaedong or Flash or Boxer are going to be happy if their competitions have any chance of being disrupted by a little excess lag (remember, these are players that have 300 to 400 actions per minute sustained for a 20 minute game and peaking higher), or Blizzard's servers going down, or anything like that? Hell no. I suspect there are few things that Blizzard could do that would be more likely to cripple SC2 on the pro gaming scene than what you suggest. And that means that (1) Blizzard has a bunch of stupid people making decisions and will require all traffic to be external, (2) Blizzard will be releasing a special version of the game or server for these high-profile competitions (but then what will they practice on, how will they figure out who gets the special version, etc.), or (3) Battle.Net will only mediate.

Which is it going to be? I don't have a crystal ball. It could be any of the three. But I think that assuming that it will be #1 is a big assumption.

Starcraft Ghost all over again? (1, Interesting)

wizardforce (1005805) | about 5 years ago | (#28963437)

I really hope SCII doesn't go the way of Starcraft Ghost... I also wonder how much of the problem is Blizzard simply putting every game but WOW on the back burner until they exhaust the franchise...

Unlikely (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#28963735)

They say in the summary that the game is pretty much ready. Battle.net just isn't ready for it.

Heh. (2, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | about 5 years ago | (#28963455)

I wish I could say it was a surprise. Blizzard never releases games on time. I try not to look forward to them.

Of course, this could all just be a marketing scam. They announce the game, wait 18 months, give a delivery date 9 months in the future, and then push it back 3 months at a time until people are frothing with the need for the game, and then release it.

I mean hell, they announced Diablo 3 more than a year ago, and they haven't even bothered to put up the first, tentative, never-to-be-kept release date yet.

suitspeak translation (2, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 5 years ago | (#28963457)

The suit-speak translation is: "Hey. We actually talked to the network guys about two days before we were going to push this out the door and told them what they requirements were and they downed a 2 liter of Dew, gave us some funny looks, then laughed maniacally and twisted in their office chairs, chanting 'More power, more power, more power...' Also, the legal department said the brain implants into the engineers were rejected and they refused to further refine our new hideous DRM. In light of these developments, we're going to release some screenshots and do a hand wave."

2010? (0)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#28963461)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Extra text to get past all-caps filter.

What about the Beta? (1)

Lord_Jeremy (1612839) | about 5 years ago | (#28963485)

Drat. I wonder what this means for the beta that was supposed to be taking place this summer. I signed up for it of course, and given that I use a Mac as my primary platform I hoped that I might have at least a slightly higher chance of getting picked :P. I don't suppose it's already started? I mean I haven't heard anything, but Blizzard may be trying to keep it super-secret.

I wonder if this has anything to do with them trying to implement LAN-like Battle.net play. This was discussed at length in the last StarCraft II related Slashdot post, though I don't think Blizzard has said much about it. I'm really hoping that they design their online play to take advantage of LAN communication if it detects some or all of the users are playing with the same network. If not, my friends and I might have to stick to the antiquated but virtually lag-less LAN play of the old StarCraft.

On a related note, lets pray that they decide to include a "spawn" feature like they did with the original StarCraft. If they make it so everyone in my occasional 8-person LAN parties would have to shell out $50 for a game that they'll only play once in a while, I just may resort to piracy. Oh don't get me wrong, I'm all about supporting the game creators, but do they really need to mooch $400 from a few friends that will be playing their game for a handful of hours every month or so?

Re:What about the Beta? (1)

Cadallin (863437) | about 5 years ago | (#28963569)

You seem quite behind. Not only have they dumped the "Spawn" feature, they've dumped LAN play as well. They announced it months ago. It's all Battle.net now.

Re:What about the Beta? (1)

pantherace (165052) | about 5 years ago | (#28963651)

Starcraft's spawn allowed one to play on battle.net, but ONLY with the original (non-spawn) keyholder. The expansion screwed this up, obviously, and I doubt if they are taking LAN play out completely, they will even bother, but they might try something like that.

There goes my pre-order (1)

GravityStar (1209738) | about 5 years ago | (#28963513)

There goes my pre-order... not that I pre-order anything usually, this is the first single pre-order I did because of a (nearly) expired gift-certificate.

In addition to that, I'd like to say, expiring gift-certificates are lame.

Mod me -1 drunk if you want.

WoW (3, Insightful)

Ogive17 (691899) | about 5 years ago | (#28963599)

They don't want to release SC2 or D3 (which will net them $60 per copy with no additional fees) as long as their cash cow (WoW) is reaping profits.

As long as the WoW content patches and expansion packs keep the millions of players paying $12/month they're going to do what they can to keep those player playing.

Re:WoW (1)

Solus_Emsu (1447987) | about 5 years ago | (#28963867)

With the way the patches are going they will soon have a button that makes you level 100 with all epics, after that maybe we'll see D3.

lan now, bnet six months? (1)

wuzzle (114386) | about 5 years ago | (#28963605)

Here's a thought.

LAN mode wouldn't require any mad crazy hacks to BattleNet to make it work;
So rather than making us wait six more months ("first half of 2010" = not before March; April 2010 = 11 years after SC1) for half a game crippled by it's dependence on internet access; why not give us a LAN-capable version now and roll out BattleNet in the first patch ?

Of course, if they did that I might actually, you know, buy a copy. As it is, my money is staying in my pocket.

No LAN = No Point.

I'm sorry but... (1)

Denihil (1208200) | about 5 years ago | (#28963621)

Battlenet requires more vespene gas.

PvPGN? (1)

thecross (1313393) | about 5 years ago | (#28963717)

I'm a casual Starcraft gamer, but I've seen PvPGN used for tournament play. My question is... does anyone think it will support Starcraft II? If so, there is your LAN support right there.

Good for them! (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | about 5 years ago | (#28963767)

I for one am glad Blizzard is delaying the game to ensure their Battlenet system maintains the same quality as their games. Way too many RTSs release with shoddy or non-existent online support; I'm looking at you, EA (C&C3)!

Doesn't matter, No LAN (1, Troll)

G00F (241765) | about 5 years ago | (#28963769)

Doesn't seam to effect me, as I wont buy the game with out LAN.

I hope other people vote with their wallets so when they come out with Diablo 3, Blizzard will include LAN.

Re:Doesn't matter, No LAN (2, Insightful)

YodaToad (164273) | about 5 years ago | (#28963923)

More than likely they'll vote that this whole LAN thing is being way overblown and they'll laugh at everyone who decided to not buy the game.

Either that or they'll laugh at you for buying the game anyway.

Re:Doesn't matter, No LAN (1)

immakiku (777365) | about 5 years ago | (#28964071)

I don't know if what you are envisioning works as well as you envisioned. Just because Blizzard has bad sales on one game doesn't necessarily change their business decision to remove LAN functionality on other games. They have no indication that you didn't buy the game because of the lack of functionality. What you should do is actually complain about it directly to Blizzard, and see if they'll respond.

Account storage? (1)

Well-Fed Troll (1267230) | about 5 years ago | (#28963793)

So does this mean they will be able to store our character inventory for more than 90 days before they delete it?
Wake me up when they do.
If they would restore the 30 accounts of mine they deleted (yes you read that correctly, 30 accounts full of characters not 30 characters), that would be a good start too. Ok, so that was askin for a pony territory, I'm jus sayin.

Polish the web page (1)

Spazmania (174582) | about 5 years ago | (#28963837)

Maybe they can spend some of their spare time polishing the web site. With javascript off (via noscript) http://www.starcraft2.com/ [starcraft2.com] is a blank page.

This is bad news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28963963)

...for the Korean pants industry

Who cares (1)

RazZziel (1144159) | about 5 years ago | (#28964067)

No LAN, no fun.

No LAN = No Buy (1)

redkazuo (977330) | about 5 years ago | (#28964069)

For me at least. Same goes for Diablo.

Unfavorable StarCraft thoughts... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28964105)

(I want to be careful with the views that I'm about to express. I am not intending to troll fans of SC and WC. They both sold tons of copies and have huge fanbases)

I never got into the StarCraft/WarCraft games. Our circle was always into RTS games which were/are under different trees, ranked by enjoyment:

Age of Empires 1,2 / Rise of Nations (Age advancement)
Company Of Heroes & Its expansions (Squad based RTS)
Total Annihilation / Supreme Commander tree (How many units can we pack on the screen)
Command And Conquer, Red Alert, 1,2, etc... (Unusual twists on real-world military equipment)
WarCraft / StarCraft (it's own genre)

I'm more interested in the AOE/RON tree. Warcraft always seemed so simplistic. It wasn't as simple as Command and Conquer or COH(which had very little focus on base micromanagement, but big focuses on military micromanagement), and it wasn't as complex as AOE/RON (which both require micromanagement of several resources and military micro). Hopefully this next StarCraft game adds more complexity and strategy types, and/or a new AOE/RON style game comes out.

If anyone knows of any up-and-coming games like AOE/RON, or any commentary about the complexity in the new SC game, it would be appreciated.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>