Blizzard Responds To SCII Outcry Page: 1
Blizzard Responds To SCII Outcry
Blizzard announced last month at BlizzCon that Starcraft II would be split into three games, one for each race.  Immediately, there was an outcry from gamers claiming that this move was made solely to milk the series as much as possible.  Well now Blizzard has made a response.  In an interview with, chief operating officer Paul Sams denied these claims.
He said: "The fact of the matter is, it's absolutely, positively untrue about us trying to stretch it out and milk it. People think that it was a monetary driven decision. I can absolutely, positively tell you, with 100 per cent certainty, that that was not part of the conversation. I guarantee it. I give my word. There was never, ever a conversation where we said, 'let's do this because we're going to make more money'. I guarantee it. As a matter of fact the sole reason we did it was because we thought it was going to be a better experience. Anybody that says otherwise is not correct. It is absolutely not what we did it for."

At the time of the announcement StarCraft II lead producer Chris Sigaty revealed that Blizzard decided to launch the game in three parts because it got bigger than they expected and to include all three campaigns from the get go would have delayed the game for years.

Today Sams backed up that comment, saying it was a "quality driven decision".

"We're doing just fine," he added. "The customers, the players of Blizzard games have rewarded us handsomely for making the right decisions on gameplay. We don't ship games before they're done and we try to provide the best experience that we possibly can because that's our priority. We shipped a ton of games that have been great but we've also cancelled a ton of games that every other company that I know would have shipped. We don't compromise on quality, and so it was a quality driven decision. It's absolutely not a monetary decision. That's absolutely not true."
This could simply be seen as a typical company denial to claims made against them.  However, Blizzard has a strong reputation, and they already make quite a bit of money off of World of Warcraft.  It would seem pretty much meaningless for them to milk the series.  Then again, the same could be said for many other businesses.
Do you think this response is simply a token denial?
Discuss in our forums