Warcraft III is delayed

NoviceCEO · July 24, 2001, 22:45

According to Blizzard's main site, Warcraft III won't be out this year. This was at least expected. Blizzard has a tradition on doing that.

But I don't mind much. The game looks amazing for what has been released so far and Blizz commits itself again to releasing nothing but another blockbuster.

tniem · July 25, 2001, 04:02

Agreed. Wishing Firaxis would do the same, but that is for another thread.

What I am wondering is whether Blizzard hurts sales by not releasing during the Christmas sales rush?

I mean we all know it is a huge shopping time in the U.S. and many possible sales will not happen. We also know that diehard fans will buy the game whenever it goes gold. So, does postponning sales hurt a game?

I want to hear other's opinions, but here is my two cents.

I don't think it does at all. In fact a spring release (if the game is good) is probably the soundest financial decision a company can make.

In the spring, the game is the only game in town. Black and White this spring was the only game released with any significance for over a month. It did well at first but the average gamer didn't like it so it has faded a bit. Then came along expansions for The Sims and Diablo II. They have stayed high on the charts and will continue to. This christmas they will still be on the charts and because they are now well known due to the length of time on the market and a recent price drop to keep sales high, they still sell a ton at Christmas.

Look at past game offerings from Maxis, Blizzard, and others and I think this same build the game over the year through sales boosters the Christmas sales. Games like Giants that were released during Christmas may have gotten lost in the shuffle and did not due as well as they might have. So, I reallly believe that the Christmas push is over blown in the gaming industry.

Urban Ranger · July 25, 2001, 04:15

Hm, another one of the so called Real Time Strategy. The only problem is there's no strategy, merely a click-fest.

I played Warcraft, Warcraft 2. amd Starcraft. The solo campaigns got boring quickly. There are two basic types of scenarios. The first one is where your side get to build a base, and the second one is your side starts out with a limited group of units. In the first type of scenarios you have to weather the initial onslaught, then keep building until you win. In the second type of scenarios all you are doing is to solve a big puzzle.

I saw a friend play Starcraft online and all it boiled down was to rushes.

There's no comparison between these types of games and TBS.

DinoDoc · July 25, 2001, 10:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I saw a friend play Starcraft online and all it boiled down was to rushes.

Only people that don't know how to play the game rely on rushes because for the most part they are easily defeated.

BTW, did you ever play it online or are you just going by the one time you saw someone else play it online?

Quote:

There's no comparison between these types of games and TBS.

Agreed. They are two different generas after all.

NoviceCEO · July 25, 2001, 18:00

Starcraft was released in the spring and was a huge success. I recall buying the game as soon as it was launched and the volume of users playing it over b.net only increased in the two following Christmas.

Urban Ranger, I also find the campaigns boring, but I'd still play it to see the gorgeous cinematics. And about the click-fest, a signifcant part of the strategy relies outside the game. You should have a reasonable build plan and know what decisions to take when some specific things occur during game. And yes, you have to be pretty quick on putting it into practice.