User blog:Hawki/Thoughts on War Chests

So, war chests have been revealed and...ugh. This is part thoughts, part rant. I know there's other places on the Internet for that, but hey, it's my wiki (...okay, not really), my rules (not really) and my blog (...which it is). It's also partly seeking confirmation that I'm not the sane man in an insane land.

So, war chests. I'll start from the outset by saying that I don't have problem with skins in principle, in any game. I think in SC2 specifically it's iffy that there's no means to unlock them with in-game currency (after all, this is a retail game), but fine, if people want to pay to look pretty, they can do so. Goodness knows I've purchased a few skins for that sake. But I'd like to point something out. The Season 1 War Chest, in its completion, costs $25 USD. Nova Covert Ops costs $22 AUD at this time of writing. Now, I can't look at the US figures, but my maths is good enough to know that by this recknoning, purchasing an entire mini-campaign is cheaper than getting vanity items. Goodness knows Blizzard has charged rediculous prices for skins before (hello $25 unicorn mount), but it's this stark contrast that really gets to me. The idea that skins are worth more, both financially, and in terms of investment. And look, SC2 is 7 years old at this point, I think consumers and Blizzard would be better served by its developers moving onto another project (and chances are they have), but, well, yeah. Even Co-op Missions feels like it's fallen to the wayside.

Plus there's also the pricing model. One buys these skins, and then has to unlock them. In essence, you're basically buying the 'right' to earn these skins. I'm sorry, I have no idea how one can support this idea. Usually vanity items in games work on the principle of using real-world money to get what you want now, or grinding for in-game currency. This system isn't consumer friendly on any level.

I'll be honest, I don't see myself grinding for these skins. I tried SC2 multiplayer again after a 7 week break and got absolutely creamed, proving that a) I'm getting old, and b) that anyone who thinks "F2 to move = victory" has never seen battles waged on three fronts. But I guess what bugs me the most is that we could have a situation where any further StarCraft story is relayed entirely through ancilliary works, like Shadow Wars. I've stated before that I considered Legacy of the Void a solid end point for the overall story, but if you absolutely have to continue it (as has already occurred), I'd like at least some of that story to be conveyed in the primary medium. While games can rely on material outside the core game to convey their narrative (Overwatch, League of Legends, Team Fortress 2, etc.), none of those games ever had singleplayer to fall back on. Right now, of the "big four," only Warcraft really has any impetus. The Diablo storyline has technically continued post-Reaper of Souls, but at a snail's pace. Overwatch has done a very good job in worldbuilding, but there's no real core drive there. So while StarCraft has the benefit of having a logical endpoint, how long can a story sustain itself outside the game proper? Taking Shadow Wars as writ, perhaps the logical endpoint is continuous proxy conflicts (so much for that Golden Age), which is...not the worst way you could leave the universe I guess, but sometimes, I'm fine with a happy ending. Sometimes, a happy ending doesn't need to be undermined by future installments (hello Terminator, Metal Gear, and Star Wars, among others). Also the question of this practice spreading to other game series - yes, I do play quite a lot of games, I do have a life outside the Diablo/Overwatch/StarCraft wikis. :)

Well, anyway, that's just me. Agree, disagree, discuss.