We've all been told that Blizzard wasn't -- and continues to not be -- affected by Activision. But is that really the truth? I hadn't questioned the claim until recently, when changes began to trickle out of BlizzCon 08.

At first, there was an announcement of a new StarCraft II singleplayer addition each year, for the next three years. Blizzard says: We wanted to make so much StarCraft II, that we needed to split it into three separate games that each need around a full year of development -- huzzah! I was ecstatic, it was Blizzard-nerd nirvana. Then these pesky questions began creeping into the forefront of my mind, buzzing about like infuriating flies that refuse to leave your room on a particularly hot summer day.

Would these be fully priced, boxed games? If so, why only a year for each one to be developed? If they're not full experiences with typical prices, then a year of Blizzard development makes a bit more sense. However, why not just wait two years and release a regular expansion instead? It all seemed more and more arbitrary as I thought about the decision. They're not releasing StarCraft II "when it's done" like usual, and working in everything else they wanted to do with a single $40 expansion. It could be the Activision executives influencing the game, even if Blizzard says that isn't the case. Then again, it could all just be a strange choice with a mixed blessing. After all, everyone seems to be getting into the whole episodic gaming thing nowadays. To me, this just seemed like a reasonable change of methodology for a company transistioning into the digital distribution space.

I would've stopped worrying about it there, but then it was announced that the eventual re-worked Battle.net could feature some type of monetization. A service that once robbed from the rich and gave to the poor (not really, but it sounds nice to say that) would now be holding out a palm in wait for my hard earned cash. Outrage! Only, not really, because according to Blizzard the things that will cost money won't be primary functions of the service, like online play or ladders. Instead, Blizzard is considering charging for things akin to World of Warcraft server moves or name changes for characters -- superfluous services that shouldn't cause us alarm.

Still, what bout other worries? There's this back and forth of Diablo III coming to consoles, but that's not really something I think even needs to be discussed. If it does happen, who really cares? The PC version is coming first and that's where everybody interested in the title will go to experience it. By the time Diablo III hit consoles, if it even did, everyone on the PC-side will have maxed out multiple characters in level and top-notch gear. The whole thing is a non-starter for me, really. Just as I wouldn't play Final Fantasy XIII on my PC, I won't bother with Diablo III on my Xbox 360 -- I'm not nearly that patient of a person.

In truth, while I'd love to climb upon a cliff overlooking everyone reading this feature and proclaim, "Listen all ye who look upon my visage, for I am bringer of doom and optional pay-for gloom!" it just doesn't seem to be in the cards. Yeah a lot of things are still in a gaseous state, but the needle isn't tipping in any one direction here. Essential services on Battle.net could become to-pay and StarCraft II and its eventual follow-up releases may in fact ship with a singleplayer story that isn't as deep or satisfying as Blizzard is promising. We could all have reasons to light torches and thrust pitchforks skyward, but this is Blizzard we're talking about after all -- can't we see fit to give them the benefit of the doubt? Hasn't the company that brought us Warcraft 1-3, Diablo 1 & 2, StarCraft and World of Warcraft earned just a little trust from its fan base yet?

If they stumble, or fall, then we'll deal with it when it happens. Until then, I'm going to have to say that Blizzard comes before Activison for the time being. At least until we have some new games sitting in our laps as proof, anyhow.