but most importantly, its related to Hacker News because over 30 people have said it is (upvotes)

This article clearly gratifies people's intellectual curiosity. Just look at the great discussion it has generated.

Plus, I wonder how many people would have downvoted this to express disinterest. Flagging is extra work and pretty much pointless now, the only option is to ignore. There is no way to drown out a small, vocal group.

As a simple announcement, this link is light on content, but there's a lot that could be discussed if people chose to.

Take e-sports. Starcraft arguably launched e-sports and is still immensely popular, not just in Korea but around the world. The last WCG Starcraft grand final in China was apparently watched by some 10000 people who were _present_ at the match - not just watching on streams.

Even when SC2 was only in beta, tournament streams had ~5000 or more people watching live, plus countless more watching VODs later.

Can anyone see ways to monetize this? We could be on the cusp of an e-sports revolution, I'm sure there's a lot that could be done to capitalize on this. Video advertising is an obvious one, but sponsorship opportunities, premium feeds, and other possibilities abound.

Starcraft originally took off so well in Korea largely due to widely available high-speed internet access. How will the changing landscape of internet access affect it's successor?

What about emerging markets? Blizzard have launched SC2 simultaneously in 7 languages on 5 continents. They're trying out different commercialization models in markets such as South America and Russia, will these work? How will battle.net hold up, and can Blizzard succeed in driving 'hardcore' gamers towards a more connected, _social_ experience, or will people continue to complain about Facebook integration?

Day[9]'s King of the Beta launch party was 12 hours of streaming, and there were 13k+ people watching the stream most of the time.

>starcraft 2 is a game that values practice is thinking out of the box more than anything else, I know far more starcraft players amongst startups/hackers than settlers of catan, or anything else.

I love it when people say games value thinking out of the box. Yeah! My Zerglings can beat a Yamato Cruiser right? Because they can like jump off of a cliff onto it... or something. Every game has a tiered structure of what works and doesn't SC2 is no different. At competitive levels of play there's only a handful of strategies people use, they'll work them selves out over the next month or so and then be set in stone unless people find glitches in the game that don't get patched like the original SC. SC2 is a game of rock paper scissors at the core. Every strategy game is.

>not only will starcraft 2 reiterate what a big deal video games are, it's going to shape popular culture, it's going to be played by millions of players each and every day for the next decade or so.

You know every other pop music group is listened to by millions of people some for even 3 or 4 decades! Example Led Zeppelin, so how come Led Zeppelin posts aren't on HN? SC2 is entertainment pure and simple, essentially by posting entertainment links it's going against the spirit of the rules. It's essentially cat pictures. And you know those are big on the internet which we're on, and that argument makes as much sense as your "on a computer clause".

You're right about SC2 reducing to a game of rock/paper/scissors, just like chess is a very simple game (not to mention Go). Yes, this unit counters that unit, which counters this other unit.. but there are quite a few units in the game, and adding terrain considerations and building/tech options (and the list of variables goes on) you start to get the situation where you can develop quite intricate strategies.

The classical example from Starcraft 1 is Slayers/Boxer, the Korean player who played as terran when everyone thought it was completely inferior, and developed new strategies that made him world champion.

Sure, you can snicker at it being "just a video game", but it's fundamentally no different from any other game or sport.

Even rock/paper/scissors can become quite interesting with just two more options, see: http://www.samkass.com/theories/RPSSL.html

Rock/paper/scissors/spock/lizard seems to have the same winning strategy as the original game. Nothing interesting there, if you know how to generate random bits.

My point was that it's entertainment. I know it's a video game, but essentially it's no different from any other entertainment. I mean we don't have World Cup or Superbowl Stories on HN, why have the release of Starcraft? I'm sure there are people here who keep up with sports.

Well, personally I think Starcraft is quite an interesting topic (game aside). The whole esports scene in Korea that it's given rise to, the fact that several top ranking starcraft players have gone on to become top ranking poker players. Besides, it's interesting if only as a success story - what is it about it that sets it apart from any other computer strategy game?

I also think Blizzard is interesting from that perspective. It's quite fascinating that they have managed to, on multiple occasions, create franchises so successful that people actually can earn a living playing them, gold farming/selling characters in the case of WoW and esports in the case of starcraft and warcraft. In that sense I think they have something in common with Apple, in that there is something intangible about what they do (quality?) that makes them extremely successful.

> My point was that it's entertainment. I know it's a video game, but essentially it's no different from any other entertainment. I mean we don't have World Cup or Superbowl Stories on HN, why have the release of Starcraft? I'm sure there are people here who keep up with sports.

Sure its entertainment - entertainment created by an large group of developers/hackers/programmers; for me, thats a major delineation from other sports and entertainment.

The discussion can turn towards the high technical aptitude needed to create games (which, IMHO, is one of the areas of development pushing the bounds of computing...AI, physics, the shit-ton of math involved, balancing...etc etc.), but thats a different topic.

> My point was that it's entertainment.

So? Why is the topic of entertainment a bad thing for HN?

> I know it's a video game, but essentially it's no different from any other entertainment.

The only thing I can see that it shares with other forms of entertainment is that it entertains. And if we are wondering why we post things that entertain us on HN, HN itself would probably not exist.

> I mean we don't have World Cup or Superbowl Stories on HN, why have the release of Starcraft?

If you honestly can't see a difference between the release of SC2 and the Superbowl, you're purposefully being obtuse, and if you are, your comments are hurting HN much more than a post about SC2.

However, I'll assume your just ignorant, and I'll explain the difference.

First, SC2 is a game that the users of HN have a higher chance of playing than they would have of playing in the Superbowl. Indeed, I'll go so far as to suggest that no registered user, yet, has ever played in any Superbowl.

Secondly, rather than simply be passive entertainment like the Superbowl, SC2 is a game we can actually play.

Next, their is a large following, and that following essentially evolved e-sports. People can laugh at e-sports all they want, but it's no different then watching real sports. Continuing on, the launch of SC2 today means the e-sports arena is essentially being revitalized. A sizable number of individuals are looking at how to capitalize on e-sports. Indeed, their are individuals actually making money casting esport games, or startups using esports to easily market via sponsorships of tournaments.

You see, the launch of SC2 isn't just a game. Why? Mostly because of the success of SC:BW in e-sports. So, unlike just another game being release, SC2 is different. It will present more opportunities for people to explore, and see how they can capitalize on the SC2.

In short, no. SC2 isn't just like every other game, and it is different from other entertainment. Indeed, it has more relevance on HN then your comments complaining about it's inclusion.

> Indeed, I'll go so far as to suggest that no registered user, yet, has ever played in any Superbowl.

What about Peter Norvig?

http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=pnorvig

I upvoted you for your explanation of videogame tactics, and then wish I hadn't wasted it after your pop music explanations.