Diablo 3 Coming To Consoles 344
RobinEggs writes "After long speculation and a few affirmative hints, Blizzard has confirmed that Diablo 3 will have a console version. Responding to a fan who asked him to 'confirm or deny' a console version of D3, Blizzard community manager Bashiok said, 'Yup. Josh Mosqueira is lead designer for the Diablo console project.' Here's hoping Blizzard remains one of the few companies to fully develop both the console and PC version of their titles, rather than simply porting the Xbox version to PC. I think we've all had enough of bizarre scrolling, menus that can't be used with a mouse, and 'Controls' menus that don't even bother replacing the 360 controller image with an actual keyboard layout."
Diablo 3 (Score:0, Insightful)
FACT: consoles retardify any gaming experiance.
PC first (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that the Diablo 3 beta has been around for a while on PC, I would expect that the console version will be ported from the PC rather than the other way round.
PC gamers don't need to be worried (Score:5, Insightful)
Blizzard is pretty PC-centric, so if anything it will be the console versions that will be shitty ports of the PC version, not the other way around.
That said, there's no reason why both versions can't be good. Torchlight was a Diablo clone made by an indie developer that was praised for the amount of work put into making the console port just as playable as the PC version. There's no reason why a big company like Blizzard couldn't do the same... other than greed and laziness, I guess.
Rob
Re:Diablo 3 (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget the in game auction house, the lack of a real singleplayer game and that like SC2 there will be no LAN play option. I remember them rationalizing taking away the offline play as not requiring people to start over if they began a character offline.
Personally, I'm glad that they didn't have anything better to do like making sure that the game is actually better than its predecessor so that they could tell players how to play. Personally, I'm glad I didn't waste my money on SC2, I'm guessing that I'll feel the same way about Diablo 3.
Blizzard, what happened to you? You used to make such good games, but ever since WoW you can't seem to create a game that's worth paying for. Last good game you made was WC3 and that was nearly a decade ago.
Re:Cover your ears (Score:5, Insightful)
I would except that Blizzard has pretty much admitted to fucking things up, i haven't been interested in Diablo 3 in quite a while because of all the "features" they've put in to prevent people from playing in unapproved ways. Any hope of me buying it evaporated the moment that I found out that there would be no singleplayer game and that there would be no LAN play either.
Original Poster Here (Score:4, Insightful)
This story, however, has much more to it than just that final acknowledgment; from the directness of the reply, including naming the project lead, to the stuff in the extra links soulskill was kind enough to add for me, there are many credible indicators of a console Diablo 3.
Re:Will it require a constant connection to Blizza (Score:0, Insightful)
SC2 has offline mode.
Re:Release Date for PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Diablo 3 (Score:4, Insightful)
Ahh! Save me! (Score:3, Insightful)
But Torchlight was made by the people that made Diablo 1 and 2. Diablo 3 is created by a completely different team.
I found both Torchlight and the D3 beta totally awful.
Maybe I'm just outgrowing hack-n-slash, along with every other mainstream category. God knows I hate 95% of shooters these days.
I swear to god, I hate indie game hipsters just as much as indie music hipsters and Linux prophets, but I haven't played a good AAA game since New Vegas, whereas indies are putting out dozens of kickass titles per year.
God help me I'm becoming an elitist. Get me some non-ironic domestic beer and a copy of MW3, stat!
Re:Release Date for PC (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Actiblizzard (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the negative aspect of the auction house? From what I see there's one auction house that uses in-game gold and another that uses real currency, and as far as I can tell neither of them are required for a player to use.
Well, for one, it gives them an incentive to design the game and item drops to maximize trading at the (real money) auction house rather than making it the most fun. Not that they will likely do that from the outset, but the promise of getting a portion of all trade at the auction house can't help but be a driver as they tweak item drop rates - once they have that ability, at some point a manager is going to point out that they could extract $x from the community by just doing this or that minor tweak. Activision won't be able to help themselves, even if Blizzard resisted initially.
There are other arguments, but to me that is the main one. It gives them an incentive to tweak the game to drive profits rather than just make the best game they can.
Re:Release Date for PC (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the Kung Fu Panda comment. The 'Pandaren' race was in place before Kung Fu Panda was released.
But who really needs their facts straight when bashing a game they'll never play.
Re:Diablo 3 (Score:5, Insightful)
the lack of a real singleplayer game
There is a single-player game in exactly the same format as Diablo 2. That is, the single player and multiplayer are the same game, but with multiplayer the difficulty is increased with each additional player. I guess it's a matter of perspective, the fact that there isn't a separate game for single-player and multiplayer, as in SC2. But with an RTS, the multiplayer component always focuses on player v player battles whereas the single player focuses on story missions - eg, the entirety of the Command and Conquer series, Dune 2000, the Red Alert series, Total Annihilation, Supreme Commander 1 & 2, Warcraft 1, 2 & 3, etc - in all of these games, there's no multiplayer "story", it's just battles.
Conversely, I can't think of a SP/MP RPG where the multiplayer isn't simply the single-player game with increased difficulty. Occasionally they add some multiplayer specific components, such as arenas, but what you're describing - "lack of a real single player game" is at best misleading. If anything, there's a lack of a separate multiplayer game, but as pointed out, this is the norm for the genre. Torchlight 2 multiplayer is going to be Torchlight 2 singleplayer + more difficulty. It's rare (I can't think of a single example, really) where an RPG developer has produced an entirely separate storyline for SP and MP.
Re:Diablo 3 (Score:5, Insightful)
> but you can always just get online in the same room.
Tell that to Ubisoft and RB6:LV2 (Rainbow Six: Las Vegas 2) You are ASSUMING the login servers NEVER go down.
Why the fuck do I need to go online when I already have friends+family in the same room ??
Re:Diablo 3 (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to preface my reply by saying that I am a huge fan of Diablo 2. I didn't like Diablo 1 all that much (a classic to be sure, but a little too slow and clunky for me). I've put thousands of hours into Diablo 2 (a small portion of which is represented on my Xfire profile [xfire.com]. I know the game inside and out. That said, while I was excited about Diablo 3, a lot of the stuff that has been happening has caused my interest to gradually wane.
Don't forget the in game auction house
Something I can understand. There are going to be items sold for D3 whether or not this exists. Any solution that *would* stop people from selling items will end up costing money as it would have to be either a very developed technology, involve a lot of people, or both. It's against the ToS of every nearly online game out there to sell items, accounts, etc. and yet you can readily buy them for all of those games.
This way, Blizz makes some money and everyone's generally happy. Hell, there are people who are talking about the potential of making a livable income off of said auction house. How possible or not this will be can only be discovered once it's actually out and has been subjected to the usual balancing, but it may be a likelyhood to put in 40 hours a week and make minimum wage or something close enough...
Moreover, occasionally people are hard up for cash and need to get rid of assets. In the digital age, a Level 80 WoW character with maxed out crafting and the best of the best epic gear is an asset in every sense of the word - yet we cannot legally sell them due to the ToS. If a similar case came up on D3, at least someone would be able to clear out a whole bunch of the items they've been saving for one reason or another and put some money in their pocket.
the lack of a real singleplayer game
Diablo 2 was fun single player, but I honestly always had more fun running it in groups. The lack of offline single player is, as far as I am concerned, the lack of a single player game though. I agree with you here.
and that like SC2 there will be no LAN play option.
This bugs me to no end, and for more reasons than you may think.
Starcraft 2 came out. I tried it on a weekend while hanging out with a friend at a LAN party weekend at his house. I loved it.
But I didn't buy it.
The lack of LAN play is a deal breaker for me. If it turns out that I really, really want Diablo 3, I may buy a legitimate version and run the superior pirate version in a sandbox so I can have LAN play. In the digital age, there are people who are just as skilled as the people working for companies like Blizzard working to give the fanbase what they want. If the players want LAN play, they'll have it - just like they have it with Starcraft 2, just like they have it with games like Minecraft that don't really have an official LAN play system (via Hamachi), and just like they absolutely will with Diablo 3. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
I remember them rationalizing taking away the offline play as not requiring people to start over if they began a character offline.
Of course. This is marketing 101. "We're not taking something away, it's actually a bonus feature!"
Personally, I'm glad that they didn't have anything better to do like making sure that the game is actually better than its predecessor so that they could tell players how to play. Personally, I'm glad I didn't waste my money on SC2, I'm guessing that I'll feel the same way about Diablo 3.
I fear that I may feel the same way about Diablo 3. I have basically zero interest in buying Starcraft 2 until the full three games are out in a battle chest, and even then I might just not buy it. There's nothing so awesome in Starcraft 2 that I would be willing to put up with the garbage that comes along with
Re:Release Date for PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Blizzard would be better off at this point to cut ties to WoW and help people transition to a new MMO with fresh start instead of attempting patches to WoW to make it flow better and *seem* original.
Obviously just my opinion. I haven't marketed any multi-million/billion dollar franchises so my view is obviously skewed.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Release Date for PC (Score:5, Insightful)
In many ways, the pandas were Samwise's pet easter egg. However, he was one of the lead graphics artists responsible with creating a LOT of the Warcraft concept art, and was very influential. Nearly every Warcraft nerd (which is not the same as all the players), when WoW first came out, knew of the Pandaren, and I recall people speculating and hoping that the first expansion (which brought us Draenei and Blood Elves) would give us Pandaren. Many people wanted to play a Brewmaster, even though they had only a faint idea of what that meant.
http://www.wowpedia.org/Pandaren [wowpedia.org] has a good deal of info on them, but the interesting section is the "History" one.
The pandaren started as a creation of lead artist Samwise Didier and an April Fool's joke, but they got a massive response from Warcraft fans.[4] When the expansion to Warcraft III was announced, the Pandaren Brewmaster was added as a neutral hero, available and playable on nearly every melee map. One Brewmaster, Chen Stormstout was included as an optional playable hero in the expansion's orc campaign. Due to this popularity, pandaren were rumored to be the new playable Alliance race to be introduced in the Burning Crusade expansion
The Burning Crusade expansion was released in 2007, a year before Kung Fu Panda, and a significant section of the population had a pretty good idea of who the Pandaren were, even then -- despite them starting as a "joke". Moreover, the World of Warcraft tabletop RPG has had the Pandaren race since 2003. Even at that time, elements of eastern philosophy and martial arts were intimately tied to the Pandaren cultural concept.
I think it's safe to say that the Pandaren were well developed before Kung Fu Panda, even if they were not a playable race in the MMO yet. I'm sure that the success of the movie made it an easier decision to make them the next playable race, but they were certainly not designed in some copycat attempt.
Re:Release Date for PC (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess we won't be seeing you in Sanctuary then, because D3 requires an always on net connection. This has been debated here and other forums previously. This move is primarily (according to Bliz) to stop the hacking and loot dupping that was rife in D2. Your character data will be stored server side, as will all loot information.
WRT to the summary comment about the PC game being a console port - you do realise it's been in Public Beta for PC and Mac for months?