NPD reports that nearly half of the 1.5 million units Blizzard's sci-fi RTS sold in first 48 hours were in the United States.
Last week, Blizzard Entertainment announced that Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty was the "fastest-selling strategy game of all time," having sold through 1.5 million units in just 48 hours. Today, as party of its July sales report, the NPD Group revealed that nearly half that number--some 721,000 units--was sold at retail in the US for the PC and Mac. The figure was only for boxed retail copies of the sci-fi real-time strategy game and did not include digital copies of the sci-fi real-time strategy game sold directly from Blizzard Entertainment's online store.
Starcraft II is now the bestselling PC game of 2010, but its debut is only the beginning. Analysts have big expectations for Blizzard's latest, with estimates for the game's 2010 sales total reaching as high as 6.5 million copies.
As the first new stand-alone game from Blizzard since 2004's World of Warcraft, Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty focuses primarily on the human Terran faction with a 29-mission single-player campaign. However, the multiplayer component also lets gamers wage interstellar real-time strategy warfare as the hivelike Zerg and the technologically advanced Protoss factions. Two sequels focusing on those factions--Legacy of the Void and Heart of the Swarm--are also in development.
Heart of Swarm and Legacy of the Void, hmmmm, I doubt the new unit will be excluded from patching without both games. But I'll get both, initially Legacy of the Void was my second, but now infested Kerrigan turn human, I really wanted to know what really happened in the Swarm, its no longer a mere continuity, its a continuity with a twist, hopefully Blizzard live up to its reputation for good story-telling.
I have a sealed copy of the CE that I cannot decide if I should return or sell on ebay in like 5 years.
@jaxxraxor technically speaking, it's on two platforms.. PC and MAC. But I agree with your main point. I used to be huge into PC. Always a huge emphasis on Valve and Blizzard games. Quake, Unreal, and original Tribes as well, those games were always fun online. I think I was most addicted to the customization options that computer platforms made possible.
@steve4123456789 I assume your talking about Modern Warfare 2. That game is a multiplatform release, and games on consoles tend to sell a lot more than on the PC because it's much cheaper to buy a video game console then to get a good gaming PC. Still Starcraft II is going to sell well, and remember its getting alot of income from digital sales (probably about 30% of the sales of Starcraft II are from digital income). So don't fret. But remember that Starcraft II is only on a single platform and one in which most people don't have (i.e a good gaming PC).
Starcraft 2 is a great game, makes me angry how call of duty is selling alot better, and its sht, adleast starcraft takes abit of thinking, and brain which many of the COD ordinance lack.
@bahamat0 The article was retracted by the original writers. They were talking about WoW. Starcraft 2 wasnt anywhere near $100 million. You can look it up online
@Rottenwood "Trust me, brother, you do NOT want to go there. You could make a case that you've been buying 2D Mario expansion packs for 25 years. It'll make your head pop off." Touche, touche........well put my friend! ^_^
Anyone else think this number is low? I expected at least around 3 million which is what the typical WoW expansion sells in first day or two of release.
bahamat0 oh please they made enough money rom wow to make alot o games but thats not how business woks a game must pay for itself or it was a bust. 60 or pc game = over priced. once this is the standard i will hop back on consoles and savee money and wont have to deal with alot of bugs as you do on pc games
@blaznwlipspman1: Well, according to an article posted here on GS, the development cost for SC2 was $100 million through its 7-year development without counting the marketing expenditures, plus they are working on Cataclysm, Heart of the Swarm, Diablo 3, and the secret IP MMO, which all of them has their own development costs plus the employee salaries. At the top of that, they have to pay the salary for the employees who are working on maintaining the services of WoW and battle.net. So blizzard has LOTS of expenses on their heads, and the monthly fees from WoW can't even cover a quarter of their expenses. So there is a reason why SC2 costs $60, not the "Becuz zey vant our moneh" reason which some people are claiming, but because they need to keep themselves financially balanced. Plus, other than the game having 1 campaign, the game itself has much more contents than what the original SC did, so I had no problem nor obligation about the game costing $60 at all :)
Even though inflation and developing costs have risen over the past couple of years, you people also need to realize that the market has grown exponentially. Back then the market was in the hundreds of millions of dollars now the video game market is worth 10s of billions. Now there are millions of people buying games like starcraft 2 which is why the game doesn't need to be so expensive to cover all the costs made in making it. Activision could have charged $30 for the game and still made a healthy profit.
@lionheartssj1 "I love our talks ^_^" Aren't they great? An Internet with 10 billion people on it, and we use it so two people can have the same circular argument! "Though, considering inflation adjustments, that was much too expensive for the time, I think most of us can agree on that." Back then, Square and Nintendo used the brilliant '90 hours of gameplay!' tagline to justify it. We gamers were too young and inexperienced to realize that tedious grinding wasn't exactly quality gameplay. "But when we're talking entire campaigns, or key experiences of the game.....they can charge whatever, because they know people will buy it, AFTER they bought the game." A fair point, but Blizzard has made it well-known that the game will be a trilogy, and as of yet, has not dumped any hidden surcharges on us. I think they've made an honest deal. If the rug is pulled out, though, I'll be the first to admit you were right. "Theoretical gamer already owns SC2......they'll be paying $120 more dollars for more ~missions~, however small or large those might be." Trust me, brother, you do NOT want to go there. You could make a case that you've been buying 2D Mario expansion packs for 25 years. It'll make your head pop off.
@lionheartssj1 I agree with you to a certain extent. Games keep going up but that is the result of inflation and higher development costs. Games are already dirt cheap compared to console games in the 90s. I remember paying (well not me but my parents) 100 bucks before taxes for Super SF2 for the SNES. What I don't like is the nickel and diming.I play mostly console games (and SC2) and I find that ever since thsi generation started it's all been about nickel and diming us. Even stupid things like avatar clothes cost a few bucks each. Granted, I never buy them because (even though I can easily afford it) it's such a stupid concept to be paying 2-3 bucks for virtual clothes when I went out and bought some nice T's at Old navy for 6 bucks the other day.
Oh one more thought. Theoretical gamer already owns SC2......they'll be paying $120 more dollars for more ~missions~, however small or large those might be.
@Rottenwood I love our talks ^_^ Touche on the old school games. Though, considering inflation adjustments, that was much too expensive for the time, I think most of us can agree on that. People still paid, much to Nintento's enjoyment, but you're right the market eventually corrected itself to a degree. Unfortunately for myself, and I'm sure many people these days, inflation is outpacing salary .... a situation I hope to remedy, and a completely different discussion. I still worry that pricing will raise simply because we pay it. EA sells a flame decal for your gun in Dead Space for a dollar......pretty sure the price for pixel is greatly skewed there, but I'm sure somebody probably paid it, and they can spend their money however they want. But when we're talking entire campaigns, or key experiences of the game.....they can charge whatever, because they know people will buy it, AFTER they bought the game. Logically this can't change drastically one way or another overnight but its something that should at least be talked about. OK, I'm done spamming this thread, I humbly bow out. Just wanted to provide some food for thought.
Does anyone remember the dark spot on Starcraft? It was called Starcraft 64. We should hope that Blizzard learned its lesson on what happens with crappy ports.
$60 for an awesome game I'll be playing 10 years from now, as long as there's no monthly charge what's not to love?
People come to your senses and stop caring about game sales . Realise that this , so called , generation of consoles especially xbox 360 and ps3 has accomplised one thing , fanatism . Thats right most of console gamers , who express their opinions in forums have really become sony fanatics or microsoft fanatics , they have moved beyond the fanboy situation . Fanatism is bad in every aspect of life , so STOP being fanatics . The same applies to the pc fanatics as well. Gamers just play whatever game you like but stop arguing with other people , after all dont forget we are just customers of those companies . Now from my personal experience in terms of graphics the pc is by far the best platform . Thanks for reading all the above , which come from a ps3 and pc gamer who has played more than 180 games on both platforms.
@akhorahill Both the original StarCraft and Wings of Liberty have 30 missions. How is this new game a 'third' of a campaign again? I honestly don't get it. Never mind the fact that, in terms of both quality and variety, the campaign in WOL utterly buries the original, even if the writing is a tad scattershot. I suppose they could've released the Lord of the Rings trilogy as a 9-hour movie instead of charging us for three installments, too. Curse those devils! In a business where companies are basically selling you roster updates or new FPS maps under the guise of a 'new game,' Blizzard is indeed crafting three unique and compelling campaigns in the same time frame. I respect your point of view, but I couldn't be more excited over having a full dance card of Blizzard for the next 5 years. The Zerg and Protoss are great creations and they deserve their own campaigns.
everyones saying its a 1/3 of the campaign. well theres 30 missions and starcraft 1 had 30 missions without the expansion that came out later. yes i bought the game and yes it is worth it
@ecw1983 It's one thing to give baseless information about where you live, regardless of whether it is true or not. It's irrelevant. We're on the internet. No need to prove yourself to anyone. But then after, you start calling dude inbred and a retard So you really detract from your credibility with that. You have no way to know if he's inbred. Also, I really doubt with his reasoning and communication skills that he would be mentally challenged. So to be fair, you're just saying it to be rude. And even if you may have perceived his comments as rude (which I'm not saying you shouldn't), you only make yourself look for the worse by engaging and retaliating. In fact, you come out looking all the dirtier than him because you sunk beneath his level. And that's sad. Keep this damned forum on topic and with the facts. This isn't a pissing contest.
@Rottenwood : I see your point but I think that $60 is too much for 1/3 of a campaign. In my opinion, they've raised the game's price to $180 and are charging 1/3 a year, in an attempt to find out how much one's willing to pay for the Blizz brand. Even if the human campaign is to be considered a full game, they've raised the price by 20% just to see if they can. I can only show that I don't agree with those new price standards by not buying it until the battlechest comes out. The market is indeed a beautiful thing.
Starcraft 2 is indeed a full game. I also commend Blizzard for finally being honest about one of their series. Blizzard is notorious (or should be) for putting out 1/2 of the story and forcing you to buy an expansion pack for the rest (Diablo, Diablo 2, Warcraft 3, etc). This time they at least said, "look, full Terran campaign. The others will come out as separate games." Now I have an informed decision without buying the first and finding out it hangs at the end.
WHAT.. PC is dead??? :D then you say SNES, PS1, PS2, 3DO, is NOT DEAD!! Consoles died LOOOONG TIME AGO... yesterday played Baldur's Gate II Shadows Of Amn (1999) & Max Payne (2001) on PC... you can't play games like that on your current Consoles system.. WHY?? Because it's dead..
The game is awesome. Get a job you fools or stop pinching pennies and stop crying. Most of the console games I pay 60$ for are garbage compared to SC2, so the pricing is FINE...
@lionheartssj1 $60 is, all told, perfectly reasonable. Inflation is what it is, and development costs have also risen. It's especially evident in the light year leap that Battlenet has taken. In the original games, it was a fairly awkward but useable service. Now it's a thing of beauty, and outside of the purchase of the game itself, completely free. With all due respect to Valve, it makes Steam look positively primitive. (Although Steam is the only one selling the original X-Com for three dollars, so we'll call it even.) The market is a beautiful thing and these issues will resolve themselves. StarCraft offers a month or so of campaign goodness, and years of multiplayer. By any measure, that's worth $60. When lesser games try the same price point, they'll rot on the shelf. And when games become too expensive as a whole, enough people will stop buying them to make publishers correct course. You have to remember, I used to pay $60 for Super Nintendo games. When I see what $60 gets me now, I feel pretty lucky.
@Rottenwood I completely understand your position. Ok, 30 missions, is the least they could do. No LAN? Piracy control prob. But don't you see this becoming a problem? Most complete top shelf PC games come out at $40-$50, and this is $60. I was also pissed when $60 became the set point for console games. As long as we keep paying whatever, then software is gonna keep on going up, despite the quality. More and more I see full price games come out with add-ons that complete the game for $5 here, $10 there, $60 campaign here, $60 campaign there. There's no doubt in my mind that its a great game, I love SC1, but I see where this train is going and I don't want to ride it.
That is awesome, I wouldn't be suprised if this game hits 10 million before the year is over in fact. People have been waiting for this game for over a decade and as usual Blizzard seems to have come through with a great game for their fans. I can't wait to get my hands on it.
Great news for Blizzar, and i'm proude to say that i'm one of the 1.5 million who bought this awesome game in the first 48 hours.
@C_Sharp The Battlechest won't be out until, I dunno, 2013? Maybe later? Uh, enjoy, I guess. Probably be a few Korean die-hards still on there.
Wow. 1,500,000 people paid $60.00 for 1/3 of a game. Gotta love sheeple...Might as well just wait until they do the inevitable GotY edition with all 3 parts for $60. I'm fully prepared for the flaming and thumbs down that is coming my way.
@raahsnavj It will follow the same order of the original game. 'Heart of the Swarm' is next and the Protoss close it out with 'Legacy of the Void.' As for everyone else, I fail to see the 'third of a game' argument. Wings Of Liberty offers a rich 30-mission campaign and some of the best multiplayer on the planet. The value for $60 is fully evident to anyone with the slightest whiff of objectivity. The mental damage of the video gamer community is fully evident when people are balking at getting three full installments of a classic franchise after 12 years of nothing.
as long as the rest of the sc2 games that come out arent $60, im fine with it. if it is still $60, oh well, i dont care, ill still buy it lol. and, to quote pc gamer " 'pc gaming's dead. it's a console-only future,' wrong. not only is pc gaming pumping battery acid for blood through its steely veins, it's actually growing. for every development studio that wilts and dies, two more sprout up to take its place. the pc's roots are everywhere, from croatia to new york, china to wisconsin." i wish i can show you guys the picture that came with this quote, but my scanner broke down. so i'll just count the teams that still work on pc games. around 85 of them are still running strong and those are the ones with big names and also some that started making a name for themselves. they are spread all over the world. so pc is still running as strong as ever console fan boys. go do some research before you make a fool out of yourselves next time. ps: i like all consoles and pc, so not fanboy for any.
It's because of this that they will be able to charge whatever they want for whatever they put out. Hold out just a little bit people, and they will make 1/3 of a game 1/3 of the price.
@Drumguru1: It doesnt matter if it sells more than ONE copy, the fact is its taken long enough to develop that they didnt make as much money as they could've (but made a better game because of it.)
"Legacy of the Void and Heart of the Swarm" Is that the release schedule too? So it will go Terran, Protoss, Zerg. I'm not a big fan of saving the whole universe with the Zerg. Oh and the topic of PC is dead... it will never be dead. And it will only get stronger the longer the console cycles last.
Oh, while I'm at it. Call of Duty: Finest Hour Call of Duty 2: Big Red One Call of Duty: Roads to Victory Call of Duty: World at War: Final Fronts Call of Duty: Modern Warfare: Mobilized Call of Duty: World at War: Zombies 1 and 2 Call of Duty: The War Collection + those in the 7 years.
Microsoft confirms that it won't charge any fees for any titles eligible for resale. Full Story
Playing Xbox One games on somebody else's console will also require a check-in every hour. Full Story
Sony confirms a $399/€399/£349 price for the PlayStation 4 hardware, $100 cheaper than Microsoft's Xbox One. Full Story
Will be coming in 2014. Full Story
Pan's Labyrinth director praises Ken Levine and Irrational Games for latest BioShock, says he would consider large-scale Pacific Rim game "God willing." Full Story
Xbox boss Don Mattrick believes concerns over connectivity are overblown, recommends Xbox 360 for those without an Internet connection. Full Story
EA Labels boss Frank Gibeau describes new project as "open-world action adventure game." Full Story
Sony on why it won't hinder PS4 used games--flexibility creates value
PlayStation boss Jack Tretton says ability to freely resell games creates value in the initial purchase; PS4 won't require online check-in because many...
