The Diablo 3 trailers are done with in-game graphics zoomed in much closer than gameplay is. From the isometric view the game will likely look pretty awesome.

Expansion packs are additional content made after the original game is completed; they are released many months after the original game, sometimes even a year or more later. With StarCraft II Blizzard has all this stuff ready to go right now but they have deliberately chosen to break it up to make more money.
And yes, it will be lacking in content. Originally it was going to have three epic campaigns--one for each race--but now each game will have only one campaign. This is OK if you are buying it for multiplayer, but many people like strong single player too.

That sounds similar to how the events will presumably play out. 2010 is only going to see two Blizzard releases - I've seen nothing to indicate that both would be SC2-related. Not to mention, that wouldn't make much business sense, either.
So when they say they've no idea how the SP meta-game for the other races will even work, it's just a lie. And the beta being delayed is just misdirection. Is that really what you're saying?
Originally it was going to have three campaigns cut down to size so they could release it in a sensible timeframe. They opted to split the singleplayer into three parts instead of shipping with lackluster campaigns.
Does that not sound like a more likely scenario, given Blizzard's commitment to quality?

nope. it sounds like they want to charge extra for something which supposed to be included in the game at first release.
There were always two campaigns in rts games. one for each side. Starcraft was awesome as it had THREE campaigns cause of three different races.
now they are telling you that you don't deserve it and you must pay additional money if you want extra campaign.
and that is wrong.

I wouldn't say it's wrong, as there isn't some set amount of money a game is worth. Rather, it's worth whatever people are willing to pay for it. The thing that will be interesting, though, is to see if Blizzard's assessment of what most people are willing to pay is in line with reality.

If you want to look at it from a purely quantitative perspective (which I don't think is entirely useful), SC2:WoL still has 30 SP maps, same as SC1.

it is not about quantity but about different style of gameplay and different storylines.
S1 was praised for that. that you could play as puny humans, or god like protos or as flesheating zergs.
s2 offers only the puny...

Sure it is. Don't you know people by now ? :)
They bitch about anything and everything under the sun but in the end no draconian method of DRM, or ridiculous prices will keep the majority of gamers away from X game, specially when there's trophies and achievements and whatnot in it.
That's basically the number one cause for most of our gaming related problems. Most gamers have a really hard time just saying no and moving on to something else regardless of how much they bich about it.

Yeah, that's typically how it does play out, although every now and then people do manage to surprise me. Regardless, I'm content to just sit back and watch how it actually turns out.

I'll sit back and watch too...but it seems that the number of games that i end up deciding not to pick up for one reason or another is increasing...fast. That can't be a good sign...

One thing is announcing expansions in advance, but splitting the game into three parts because some manager wants to buy new Porsche for his grandma is like saying: "We will charge you for this, because we can."
What will be next? Announcing SC2 expansion a year after releasing all three SC2 campaigns and saying that it will be again released in three parts?
Starcraft has hordes of fans, Blizzard knows it.
And Blizz knows that he can milk them, because fans (and fanatical fanboys) will buy all 3 parts and maybe the final collection (all 3 parts together) too, if there will be any, just for the sake of Starcraft.
From marketing perspective it is understandable. But treating your fans as a milk cows just because you can....

Talk about annoyances. Next I have a feeling that Blizzard will need your blood samples, DNA samples, and a full background check as well as checking for any priors you may have.

SC2 is looking to have more varied missions than SC1 did (though that's not much of an achievement, if you ask me). I'd rather have three proper campaigns than three neutered ones, and if splitting the game by campaigns is what needs to be done for that, then so be it. And anyway, you'll still be able to pick up the SC2 Battlechest for 50$ three years from now, having all three campaigns.
They are telling you that you deserve better than having three massively cut down campaigns, because that's all they could manage if it had to be pushed out the door right now.
Again with this conspiracy theorist silliness. Is there anything at all I could say that would make you think they're not a bunch of liars just out to rip you off? It doesn't even seem like I should bother. I mean, come on. We're looking at 90 missions and quite a lot of high-quality CGI cutscenes for the entire game (assuming the campaigns are of similar size) - and you insist that the only conceivable reason they'd split that in parts is to buy new Porsches. That's just a little bit ridiculous.

That is silly they already have new Porsches from World at Warcraft, Starcraft being split into three is for their new yachts.

and 15 years from now i will be able to pick the game for 10 bucks. it is not the solution.
There should be three campaigns. no issue about it. other games somehow manage it. one side in SP SUX SO MUCH.