As for the SC2 maps, The community as a whole can counter this, and not every map will have to be purchased.

I mean, it's good to get paid for your maps, but imagine what would happen if all of SEN made their maps free. Considering that right now we make up a large percentage of the maps being created, it would help those of us who are less monetarily fortunate to actually play those maps.

Also, I believe it is to the whim of the mapmaker to decide whether or not they want their map to be made premium, and then to the whim of blizzard whether or not to fully make the map cost money and be premium.

I only bought a $10 copy of C&C, which came with an expansion. No point in buying more of them. That's when you're just being stupid.

I think paying for SC II games won't be bad if, it's less than a dollar per map and if I get to play a demo of the map. The reason—I believe—why Blizzard is making the option of premium maps is too give map makers something to look forward to and so all those hundreds( thousands) of hours spent isn't just for the feeling of creating a map is awesome ( which it is ).

On a side note about that, I bet some people will try to make a career out of this. Make a SC II map making business. (lol)

The site has since disappeared, but there was an entire page devoted to documenting how EA ruined westwood games. Tiberian Dawn and Nox were two of the greatest games ever, and EA drove them both into the ground. For CnC, it was the endless (shitty) remakes. For Nox, it was simply abandoning the multiplayer support after 5 years. Westwood employees are quite disgruntled at EA for ruining their games too, and have issued apologies to the players on EA's behalf.

If a game is too expensive I just don't buy it. Regardless of how SC2 sucks, SC will still be an awesome game. Blizzard can't charge for maps in SCII, unless the map isn't locally stored. It will be far too easy to reverse engineer any map, and/or unprotect the map.

In Halo 3, they don't allow you to play certain playlists if you don't have the maps. Then again, not many people play that playlist anyways. In World at War, the game kicks you out of matchmaking if you don't have the map, and if the map is not skipped.

Except that, Blizzard will be paid from your work. They get a portion while you get the other portion. This is also a response to ShredderIV.

Know what the site is called? Perhaps someone in the internet has it all written down.

I've always wondered what the fascination was with people who play sports games. After getting one football game, I don't really see such a huge reason to buy 5 more after that. I suppose if they were a huge football fan, they would want the latests "stats" for their team or whatever. Still seems pointless. If a company wanted to rival EA, I suppose they would just make a game that downloads a patch to enable the next years stats / teams. But I also suppose EA has some exclusive deal with the leagues?
It's really silly how much crap they put out, but if people are buying it, whatever. I just wish rpg and rpg-like games were just as popular. Imagining a game like STALKER with a lot more resources behind it for production... that would be quite a game.

Blizz, eh... they definitely seem to be moving to a like direction, however they just don't spew out crap. As far as I see, they still try pretty damn hard to make a game impressive. I wish they would deviate from their formulas and do something a bit more daring though.

Truth, this one speaks.

I agree with Centreri on his points of "Companies aren't greedy..."

And tomorrow marks the day the next Call of Duty will be unveiled... great.

I always wonder that too. And sport games date back from the 90s, or even 80s. Though I do remember that the 1997 version of an NBA game was a great improvement over the 1996 version because it was 3D. It does sicken me how they release it every year, and the EA servers that shut down will be used on the newer sport games.
I would prefer the idea of patching, especially when there are little changes in newer games. Even if it's a slight graphic improvement, patches can easily provide better textures. The Seasons and player roster changes of course, but it doesn't mean they can't patch it for games.

EA probably does have some exclusive deal with the leagues, and the players of the sports have an interest of being in the front cover of the "new sport game". RPG games do have its popularity in East Asia and South East Asia. I always wanted role playing games to be just as popular as shooters in North America and Europe. But of course they require more resources and time management, unlike linear shooters that generally do not take as much effort. And a game similar to STALKER would be Metro 2033, which is made by people who came from the same developers from STALKER.

Blizzard never really failed in my eyes, unless in some exceptions on WoW in other point of views. However, I do like the quality and time put in the CGI, gameplay, map editor, Battle.net 2.0 and so on in StarCraft II. The entire Terran campaign can last just as long of a Terran, Zerg and Protoss campaign combined from StarCraft 1, which I like. The only problems I have is that there are three separate campaigns, each in its own $50 (or $60) price, and their intention of pricing multiplayer maps. Most likely I'd buy both Zerg and Protoss campaigns because I'm into single player, story, and of course Blizzard's cinematic cutscenes.

'quality and time put into...the editor'

AHAHAHAHAA GOOD ONE KRAYZEE.

And I'm referring to StarCraft II's editor.

I realise that... It's a piece of crap. Moderately powerful, terrible otherwise.

My first beef with EA were the constant expansion packs for The Sims. After a while I got tired of them milking me. I haven't played The Sims 2 for 2 years and never bought the Sims 3. *round of applause from recovering Sims addicts*

I read your topic and it does not influence my opinion about the editor.

I'm merely interested in what the editor is capable of, such as what Blizzard had showcased such as The Lost Viking, Uberlisk, and the third person shooter. Quite literally, they can make a first person shooter out of the StarCraft II engine, with custom models and UI. What other real time strategy game allows the capabilities possible that's not by Blizzard? And I'm referring the editor capable of creating stand alone role playing games, third person shooters, and whatnot? And hell, The Lost Viking is a side scroller, with the protagonist playable with keyboard (or mouse) [Which by the way, was nearly impossible in WarCraft III]. I honestly don't care about the interface of the editor looks like, especially if Blizzard is trying to allow it appear similarly to the original StarCraft and WarCraft III.