Strategy Informer  

I'm sorry, but WHaaaaaaa?!

That sounds like a terrible idea :/

Agreed, this sounds like a terrible idea. SC is much too competitive for f2p to work, unless they make it completely free and not just f2p.

You take even one unit out of there and it's an unbalanced mess, it can't possibly work in that way. You could sell cosmetics I guess :/

Yeah this really is the wrong game for microtransactions.

Exactly, I can't imagine a game less suitable for f2p than SC.

The game is quite competitive. I know, because I play competitively, and I can vouch for your opinions.

After the initial cost of $60 isn't the game free to play, or am I missing something. I haven't played it in a while.

Free to Play MEANS not having to buy the game!

People seem to be missing that a lot. A game isn't free to play if you have to BUY it, I mean how obvious is that?

(No offense to poster above, just a micro rant)

Sounds horrible - but still - I'm not sure if it would be for the better or worse - or simply just push me away altogether from it finally.

If they do send the MP part off - how will they justify the always online? How will they argue that the rather lack-lustre SP campaign should go for retail A premium price?

They have some real questions to deal with and some real concerns from their players to sort out before they take this step...

Never play MP in "SC II" as there are far too many that take the game far too seriously. It's a good move by Blizzard as by making the MP free it will no doubt draw many who had no intention of buying the game to do so now.

Yes, but only if they make it free for real and not just f2p, which is unlikely when you hear them talk about monetizing the thing in the very same sentence.

C'mon Geisha. with Blizzard, just like their sister company Acnevision nothing is free....ever. There'll always be a hidden agenda somewhere.

Most people know that, that's why we're so distrustful towards this idea.
But I still believe in their desire to make money, a ruined SC for the sake of short term profits won't bring them as much money as a good game that people want to play would. A.k.a I hope them to be rational about it and not give in to greed.

I think you can look to the model of Team Fortress 2 for a clue, but they really can't go FTP with Starcraft 2 while both expansions aren't out yet.

Oh that last line made me smile mate. Not give in to greed....that'll be the day.

On the note of this stupid article - I hope it's only common sense in most gamers eyes that a game is consider Free to Play after the initial cost of the game. I understand how people can naturally say its not F2P since you have to buy the game first, but you/they should see it as F2P in consideration that otherwise there would be a monthly fee to play multiplayer. Like there is the short term phrase P2P or F2P there needs to be one that indicates F2P-but-you-get-screwed-by-others-who-have-more-money-to-spend-on-the-game-through-ingame-store-to-get-an-advantage-over-their-enemy. Is there one, cause I can't remember it? a.k.a. its always been F2P in my eyes just Age of Empires 3 has always been (AOEonline the new game sucks though).

Other thoughts, its stupid they has they want multiplayer F2P - like what?; so you will have to buy the add-on of playing by yourself (person versus computer) or on single player campaign. I just don't like the first sentence of the very short article.

That's tight. By making MP free for everyone it will boost sales of the base game for sure as gamers like to play skirmish and capaign modes. MP-only is for the hardvcore set who you really don't want to come up against anyway (did so in "BAttlefield F2P" and the guy was insane).