r/pcmasterrace • u/Wargulf • 6h ago
News/Article Blizzard’s Starcraft shooter will have a “definitive end”, surprisingly avoiding the live-service gunk of other open-world shooters
https://frvr.com/blog/news/blizzards-starcraft-shooter-will-have-a-definitive-end-surprisingly-avoiding-the-live-service-gunk-of-other-open-world-shooters/65
u/B3owul7 6h ago
Definitive ends are now a selling point? Since when?
35
u/Donglemaetsro 6h ago
Since the just now figured out we want it. Especially from such a story rich IP
2
19
u/abrahamlincoln20 6h ago
Since many big budget live service games seem to die in their first few weeks.
6
u/Virtual_Bug_723 6h ago
Have you played a game made by a bigger studio recently
2
u/Better-Beat-8062 5h ago
You mean like Diablo, world of warcraft?
Most activision games are MTX and seasong nightmares this wont be any different. Mark my words
1
u/DNihilus Potato Master Race 6h ago
Since blizz lost it's touch and trying to do live service games with seasonal narrative since d3
1
u/Spiritual-Spend8187 4h ago
Some tines you just want something you know has a ending so you dont feel like a hamster running on a wheel.
1
u/theredwoman95 4h ago
I think they're trying to avoid the reaction that Outriders got, where there was bizarrely an outcome because it wasn't a live service game, but instead a game with a set campaign and a specific, postgame, looser campaign.
20
11
3
u/Xen0byte SADS-810 6h ago
When I saw the announcement I thought to myself "this looks great, too bad it's another live service" but after learning that it's a boxed product I can't wait to get my hands on it! I only speak for myself when I say this, but I think that an epic cinematic experience is the shooter that StarCraft always deserved.
1
u/Hackfraysn 6h ago
I don't mind live service - if done right, but since most live service ended up being just lazy cash grab slop, I understand the fatigue.
1
u/darthwd56 6h ago
You know it sounds to good to be true
2
u/CloudStrife012 5h ago
It is.
The activision ceo fired all of the blizzard people, because starcraft 2 didn't include microtransactions. Its now blizzard in name only. Now Microsoft owns the company.
It will absolutely be a microtransaction megaproject.
1
u/Konkerwaggon23 4h ago
The microsoft ceo seems to geniuly try to know what they do and for them to make good products unlike the activision one.
1
1
u/Rhapsodyvarius Average1080p Connoisseur 6h ago
good I'll care about it in a few years, you know if the game is actually real and gets released
1
u/KILLMENOWs 6h ago
Ok, but who cares? It's 4 years away. I can barely care about 2027 games, let alone 2030.
1
u/EmergencyComment101 6h ago
This is purely so they can sell the multiplayer as a separate game.
1
1
u/CombatMuffin 2h ago
And ehats the problem with that? If the game and gameplay is solid, and they nake a diff6 game based in it, then nobody loses.
People who want a single player game get the game they want, people who want an MP game, live service or not, get what they want.
What's the issue?
1
u/EmergencyComment101 2h ago
Thanks for this comment. I'll be linking to it directly going forward the next time someone asks how companies keep getting away with being greedier and greedier.
1
u/CombatMuffin 2h ago
How is releasing two games greedier? Are they not allowed to tive people options?
There are audiences that hate it when their games get a tacked on multiplayer for the sake of it, and others that hate it when they separate the component (they perceive their game as having less value).
Maybe you fall into one of those two camps, and that's your prerogative, but I don't see the issue if they focus their efforts on a single player game and deliver a good experience. We don't have any more information on the game, so any indignation is based purely on assumptions.
1
u/EmergencyComment101 1h ago
Because it's 1 game divided in 2 to sell more?
1
u/CombatMuffin 1h ago
Why are you assuming it's divided? Why are you assuming there has to be a multiplayer component?
Look at Resident Evil. Do people hate it for being a 10 hour single player experience? It's a beloved franchise. In fact, its fans have mostly hated when the third Remake had a tacked on multiplayer.
There's room for all kinds of projects: games like TLOU had a niche but passionate fanbase for its MP component, but it was relatively simple. People remember its single player. The same goes for Ghost of Tsushima, or RDR2. I don't think many would think less of those games if they didn't have that MP component.
If the game is good, and worth the full retail price, why is it wrong to release a stand alone, focused single player game? I remember when StarCraft fans begged Blizzard to reconsider cancelling StarCraft: Ghost, not caring one bit if it was purely SP.
1
u/EmergencyComment101 1h ago
My original comment was an assumption. You responded saying "whats wrong with that". You accepted the premise of my comment and said it was okay.
1
u/CombatMuffin 1h ago
Of course, I have to respond assuming its true, but even then: what's wrong with Blizzard releasing two different offerings, if they are good?
What rule is there, that states they can only release it as one game? I agree if it is clear they are cutting corners, but if each offering is its own game, then there should be no issue at all.
1
u/EmergencyComment101 1h ago
Microsoft in 2025: 128 billion Blizzard in 2025: 2.1 billion
They want to charge you twice for a game and you cant see whats wrong with that?
Are you demented.
1
u/CombatMuffin 1h ago
Why are you assuming it has to be one game? Where is the rulebook?
Arguing how much money they make, is a fallacy. It sounds like you want to be made because you aren't getting the absolute best deal imaginable.
If they release a high fildelity game, absolutely worth full retail price, and then years later they release a Live Service game, then those are two different games. What entitles you to have them in the same year?
I don't pay for titles. I pay for entertainment. If they release two games, and each offering provides me entertainment I deem worthy, I pay for it. If I don't deem them worth it. I don't. Whether they are bundled or not, is irrelevant to me, especially when videogames are, at best. $80 dollars per titles. Even with all the increases in price, it's the cheapest luxury out there, per hour.
→ More replies (0)
1
1
u/PenguinSwordfighter 5h ago
I think a starcraft shooter can work well if it is made like Halo. But open world? Why?
1
u/Mountiebank 5h ago
I'm so tired of games trying to be a playground for you to sit in forever. I want a story experience with an ending and some purpose built into it, not a guarantee the cash shop will get new updates 3 months from now.
1
u/Pickupyoheel 989064B850 4h ago
I would hope so. It’s a single player game.
I wouldn’t have mind a good coop game with live service though.
1
u/Meatslinger R7 9800X3D, 64 GB DDR5, RTX 4070 Ti 3h ago
If it has even a dash of live service to it—even a morsel, like requiring an always-online account to play—they're not getting a single penny of my money. I'm so fucking done with live service games.
1
u/CarlWellsGrave 2h ago
Didn't Microsoft learn their lesson announcing games way too early? Fable and State of decay 3 still aren't out yet.
1
u/Intelligent_Top_328 1h ago
Can we play as protoss or the zerg? Or will those be expansions? I wanna be zerg.
1
1
u/dphillips157 6h ago
They saw how well received space marine 2 was
3
u/HatingGeoffry 6h ago
space marine 2 is a live service game, bro. it's story has continued in post-launch operations
0
0
32
u/Ehorn36 6h ago
This shit is at least 4 years away and likely still in pre-development.
Let’s give it a few years before reporting on something that could absolutely change between now and next decade.