There is currently a handful of devs doing the occational balance patch for SC2 otherwise the game is complelty dead from the developer side. On the MS side, AoE2 and other even older games are doing so much better.
And SS1 came out 29 years ago and just got a remaster. This isn't a years-pissing context. Starcraft II was supported way long, and extensively. And like all good games, eventually the vast vast majority of players have moved on, and then the devs might move on, too.
The issue is not not players of devs, but the management that probably doesn't think it's profitable enough anymore. Yet, Microsoft manages to keep AoE2 going with an even smaller playerbase than SC2.
So MS taking over an abandon francise I care about sounds pretty sweet to me.
Isn't the expansion content between SCII's expansions and AoE2's expansions significantly different?
EDIT: the last one was 3 races (note: races are significantly less diverse in AoE2 vs in SC2) and 3 campaigns, each with 6 maps each
I feel like the Co-OP commanders they added fairly frequently would constitute roughly the same amount of race content. Campaign content not so much but the main campaign of each SC2 expansion is 26 stages, not including branching paths.
Not that much. Yes, AoE2 usually adds new factions, that won't happen in StarCraft II. But introducing new units or reworking existing one is possible.
Adding singleplayer mission is pretty mich the same.
Also the Co-op mode of SC2 is quite popular and there is room to add a "new factions" there.
yes it does matter. These are businesses. They make money by selling things. You cannot compare one rereleasing the same game with minimal changes for new money to keep supporting an existing game without charging new money.
But do they need the games to be good? Activions sucks balls, but why would microsoft make the games good again and remove all the shit with microtransactions etc.?
I haven't played it but I have read that Diablo 4 has been mostly well received. I guess there's been a fiasco about one of the updates to it, but that's not something unique to Blizzard and theoretically could be fixed in another update, no?
MS is the last hope to safe some of the classic Blizzard titles as the state of Activision Blizzard as it is simply can't get any worse.
Why? As in, why are they "the last hope"? What can they do that ActiBlizzKing cannot?
Literally anything.
There is currently a handful of devs doing the occational balance patch for SC2 otherwise the game is complelty dead from the developer side. On the MS side, AoE2 and other even older games are doing so much better.
… that game came out 13 years ago and was supported with expansions for 6 years
And AoE2 came out 24 years ago and is supported with expansions to this day.
And SS1 came out 29 years ago and just got a remaster. This isn't a years-pissing context. Starcraft II was supported way long, and extensively. And like all good games, eventually the vast vast majority of players have moved on, and then the devs might move on, too.
The issue is not not players of devs, but the management that probably doesn't think it's profitable enough anymore. Yet, Microsoft manages to keep AoE2 going with an even smaller playerbase than SC2.
So MS taking over an abandon francise I care about sounds pretty sweet to me.
Isn't the expansion content between SCII's expansions and AoE2's expansions significantly different?
EDIT: the last one was 3 races (note: races are significantly less diverse in AoE2 vs in SC2) and 3 campaigns, each with 6 maps each
I feel like the Co-OP commanders they added fairly frequently would constitute roughly the same amount of race content. Campaign content not so much but the main campaign of each SC2 expansion is 26 stages, not including branching paths.
Not that much. Yes, AoE2 usually adds new factions, that won't happen in StarCraft II. But introducing new units or reworking existing one is possible.
Adding singleplayer mission is pretty mich the same.
Also the Co-op mode of SC2 is quite popular and there is room to add a "new factions" there.
No they're VERY different from what I checked. I'm not sure how you could possibly say "not that much" to that!
Different how?
Comparing one thing to an exception is dumb in the best of times
The original AoE or the rereleases? Because i had to pay for the definite edition.
Doesn't matter. The option to pay for some more content is literally what I'm hopeing for.
yes it does matter. These are businesses. They make money by selling things. You cannot compare one rereleasing the same game with minimal changes for new money to keep supporting an existing game without charging new money.
It doesn't to me. They can re-release the game with an updated engine or just add more content via DLCs and expansions, I'll take either.
StarCraft 3 and warcraft 4 hopefully.
Maybe a non shit diablo game.
Why would they do that? CoD is a better investment. This is MS. Not some fan boy.
They need more games for their pass.
But do they need the games to be good? Activions sucks balls, but why would microsoft make the games good again and remove all the shit with microtransactions etc.?
If the games are good and non-exploitative it would in theory drive up Game Pass subscriptions.
They would just contract Blizzard to make that, so if they were able to do it they would have done so already.
Since when was that a thing that Blizzard does?
I haven't played it but I have read that Diablo 4 has been mostly well received. I guess there's been a fiasco about one of the updates to it, but that's not something unique to Blizzard and theoretically could be fixed in another update, no?