klaymen: See the difference?
From a price or content perspective? No, I don't even see how it's relevant.
And I don't see how announcing the expansions in advance is a bad thing, either. Not keeping customers in the dark about their plans is a good thing, as far as I'm concerned (refer to: L4D2).
TheCheese33: Wait a second... StarCraft II will be $60 for each campaign, not $50?
I was under the impression that expansion packs retailed for a lower price. Though I can't say I really kept up with Blizzard's recent releases, as WoW doesn't interest me.
Arkose: If you pay full price for 1/3 of the game you are just encouraging them and are part of the problem.
Was SC1 and WC3 half a game, just because they got an expansion?
Just because it's not the entire SC2 doesn't mean it doesn't have as much content as any full-priced game should. Sure, it might turn out to be lacking in content, but you're just jumping to conclusions, saying that it is.
ovoon: Of course, game before graphics, but in this case, it's just NOT ok.
Dunno, I think their CGI looks good enough. In-game graphics are probably just a result of the targeted system requirements.