StarCraft 2
I’m pretty excited about the upcoming release of StarCraft II.
StarCraft was probably the only game where I saw hundreds of hours of gameplay. Others where I saw upwards of 40–70 hours include Diablo and Diablo II, Ultima Underworld, Homeworld/Cataclysm, Doom/II, and maybe a few others. Recently I’ve probably logged about 40 or so hours of World of Warcraft but that’s only because it’s a job. To put that list in perspective, I have friends that can boast a list at least ten times that.
Anyway, StarCraft was the grandaddy favorite for me. It was played on at least three generations of hardware and each time I installed the game I hoped that it would somehow get better with my new machine. But that’s not what StarCraft was about. It was a near perfectly balanced sci-fi strategy game that stood the test of time. Well, people might argu that it was well-balanced burt certainly it was well-balanced enough that after the Brood War expansion was released, the game has since seen only minor tweaks. In my head, StarCraft needed change like Chess needs change.
Wikipedia has a nice writeup on StarCraft’s legacy:
StarCraft was the best-selling computer game in 1998[1] and won the Origins Award for Best Strategy Computer Game of that year.[2] StarCraft was listed on IGN's "Top 100 Games of All Time" featured as #7, and in 2006, received a Star on the Walk of Game at Metreon, San Francisco. Nine million copies of StarCraft and its expansion pack, StarCraft: Brood War, have been sold since its release,[3] making it the third best-selling computer game in history (behind The Sims and The Sims 2). It is especially popular in South Korea, where professional players and teams participate in matches, earn sponsorships, and compete in televised matches.[4] Blizzard initially intended to continue the story with the tactical shooter StarCraft: Ghost, which was later put on hold indefinitely. The sequel, StarCraft II, was announced on May 19, 2007, in Seoul, South Korea.
Now consider StarCraft II. From what I can see from via their beautiful high-resolution gameplay demos, Blizzard has done something heroic. They have somehow maintained the essence of the original game but have effectively lifted a milky veil over the experience and brought to bear a visceral, lifelike, mind-blowing experience.
Having a free-moving camera is just the start. They have added havok physics best demonstrated to me by the falling pieces of a Protoss Colossus sliding down a ramp it was destroyed upon. They can support hundreds of on-screen units which should make any player favoring the Zerg very happy. Units can now walk up and down some cliffs, finally shedding the original game’s artifically feeling tiles. I can only imagine what the level editor will allow you to do.
I have questions around how they will charge for online play. Blizzard has monotized well on World of Warcraft and the pay-per-play model has proven a successful model across the industry. Part of the reason why MMORPG’s like WoW need to charge per month is due to the heavy level of multi-player interaction that needs to happen as an artifact of the MMO game design. This interaction can only be realized when it’s hosted by an industrial-strength datacenter. Such datacenters are expensive to run. They require power, new hardware, and most of all they require salaries for expensive technicians and game arbiters.
My hopes are that StarCraft will not fall prey to the same model. There are a number of reasons why I think the game will remain free after the initial purchase but only time will tell. Blizzard’s site seems pretty mum about the issue, but I wonder if anyone following the game more closely knows more? I’d love to know.
In my head, a significant factor in the massive success of the game could well be due to the pricing model. You buy the game and play it for free after that. In my head, games like WoW are driven by an addiction and thus fit nicely into the midset where you simply need to play all of the time or your friends will blow past your level and you’ll be playing alone. Also, it’s a persistent world so you essentially are driven to play continuously since the world is continuously evolving.
If Blizzard hopes to keep their goose laying golden eggs then I hope they maintain the existing model which, IMHO, facilitates the tournament-style mentality of its players. Unlike WoW, StarCraft is not a continuous experience. You play a match and walk away.
The questions in my mind are whether Blizzard loses money in maintaining battle.net for all of those South Korean tournament players. Also, will the support for new massive armies require heavier server resources and thus datacenters equivalent to those needed to run WoW?
Those parameters to these economics are simply not available to me. If that turns out to be a losing equation, it think we’ll be looking at some form of monthly charge to play online. I have a few friends who love StarCraft dearly but are so against pay-per-play models that I fear they will boycott the new release on principle. I do not think they would be alone.
Oh, lest I forget. StarCraft II will be available on the Mac!