Activision Blizzard has delayed the release of StarCraft II until the first half of 2010 to coincide with the launch of its new Battle.net game service, which it says will be "similar to Xbox Live."
"A true online destination platform, Battle.net will become the foundation for connecting the tens of millions of members of the Blizzard community in a social gaming network across all Blizzard's future games," said company CEO Bobby Kotick.
StarCraft II Gameplay trailer
Official trailer
21:42First full gameplay trailer from the RTS sequel features over 20 minutes of in-game action
StarCraft II Gameplay trailer
Official trailer
21:42First full gameplay trailer from the RTS sequel features over 20 minutes of in-game action
Age Restricted Content Please enter your date of birth below in order to verify your age before watching this video
You must be at least 0 years of age.
Play Again? Missed something? Just watch it again..
Watch More Videos Browse related videos and see what's new & popular
Share This Video Email this video, or embed it into your own web page
StarCraft II Gameplay trailer
Official trailer
21:42First full gameplay trailer from the RTS sequel features over 20 minutes of in-game action
"To put Battle.net into context, it will be a service similar to Xbox Live and it will leverage the technologies, infrastructure, and expertise that Blizzard has developed over the last decade in multiplayer play and social networking.
"... There is no better opportunity to launch this strategic initiative than through the launch of Starcraft 2. The title is likely to be the most anticipated groundbreaking realtime strategy game of all time and the Battle.net platform is an investment in the future of gaming and an opportunity that we are uniquely positioned to capitalise on."
Blizzard head Mike Morhaime said that the company's next generation Battle.net service would be "integral" to the StarCraft 2 experience.
"The new version of Battle.net is being integrated with StarCraft 2 more tightly than in any previous Blizzard game... In addition to supporting tournaments, rankings, and multi-player game matching for StarCraft 2 and future Blizzard games, the next generation of Battle.net will add social networking features, cross-game-communication, unified login and account management, and more.
"Battle.net will bring together players from across all of our games including World Of Warcraft, eventually allowing them to connect, communicate, and share experiences with each other through the service regardless of which Blizzard game."
Morhaime also noted that Blizzard will "move immediately on to the first of two expansions" for StarCraft 2 following its release.
Activision Blizzard's profits jumped sevenfold and its revenues tripled during the second quarter ended June 30, although StarCraft II's delay led the firm to reduce its full year outlook.
The company's earnings conference call transcript can be read in full on Seeking Alpha.
Yep. As per usual. It's hardly rocket science and yet whichever random decision dart throwing boardroom chimps calling the shots seem to get it wrong consistently year in and year out. Fair enough that there are development delays, etc. that crop up and it is certainly the publishers choice when to release, yet since they want our money - which is in finite supply - they might each stand to gain an overall bigger slice of the pie all around if they didn't adopt a "feast or famine" game release approach. Oh well, SSDD.
Balls, do we really need all those battle.net features to play starcraft 2 online? Surely those could have been worked on after release. I would be happy playing the single player campagin with the multiplayer locked until next year. Hopefully this means the single player content for all three packs is near completion and there won't be too big a gap between releases
Nothing wrong with the current Battle.net and it's servers. I used to play Warcraft 3 on dial-up and I never had any problems with that, it was just log on and you were almost straight into a game and getting your ass kicked because everyone is better than you. It's like they're changing it for the sake of it, and I bet they alienate a lot of people by doing so.
Jebus... So many games delayed to Q1 2010. Looks like ALOT of developers are going to get screwed over and some good games missed out on due to this...
I can see the player having to pay to use the best features of this service. Only being allowed basic access and stats for nothing. The greed is in their eyes can't you see it. They have already split the game into 3 full releases, this was always next on the list IMHO.
The greed is not in Blizzard's eyes. It's in Activision's eyes, and Activision now run Blizzard. My hatred of Activision knows no bounds.
On thought, this delay was probably Activision's idea, so they didn't have to force people to choose between MW2 and this. It's all about making momey for them.
Bobby Kotick needs to stop existing or drown in a pool of his own Warcraft subscriptions.
The greed is not in Blizzard's eyes. It's in Activision's eyes, and Activision now run Blizzard. My hatred of Activision knows no bounds.
On thought, this delay was probably Activision's idea, so they didn't have to force people to choose between MW2 and this. It's all about making momey for them.
Bobby Kotick needs to stop existing or drown in a pool of his own Warcraft subscriptions.
it was a merger right? not an acquisition, so no1 owns anybody. thats why its not called activsion anymore but activison blizzard. (god i hope im right on this 1)
and there was never a choice like tht. people who want starcraft will buy it. doesnt matter if theres some shooter coming out on the same day.
True, true. But Activision are the more powerful company of the two that merged, as well as being greedy, bullying basta*ds, so they probably have more of a say in operations than the Blizzard part of them. Either way, I think that talented developers like Blizzard has were better off before the merger.
True, true. But Activision are the more powerful company of the two that merged, as well as being greedy, bullying basta*ds, so they probably have more of a say in operations than the Blizzard part of them. Either way, I think that talented developers like Blizzard has were better off before the merger.
actually i think one of blizzards conditions was tht activision doesnt screw around with them in any way (im going on memory here so i may b wrong) and tbh blizzard are the more powerful of the two both financially and creatively if you think abt it.
+the point of a merger is tht the 2 companies just become 1 company which combines resources and of course the 2 revenue streams. if 1 has more power then its not really a merger but pretty much a free acquisition unless theres some contract shenanigans which can direct the power or decision making towards specific individuals, sectors etc. watever, thts my take on it
i have 2 agree with the fact tht all this EA bullsh1t they are pulling off doesnt seem to be resonating from the blizzard guys but the newer guys or activision pepl. thats how it looks anyways.
oh and yh guys, dont watch gi joe..... no really dont
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
?
