Blizzard: We're "Very Serious" About Diablo III On Consoles

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Sacred 2 did rather well on consoles so I dont see why D3 shouldn't work for both just as well.

twistedheat15:
Nice, now we can spend the next couple months listening to "ZOMG WTF BLIZZARD! I wanted years for a new Diablos, and now it's getting dumb down for shitty consoles, I'm boycotting this game, who's with me!"

And yet they are going to buy it as soon as it comes out.

I expect this console version to require you to be constantly connected to Xbox Live or the playstation network and if at any point your connection drops you get booted out of the game.

teisjm:
I don't see how this should hurt the PC version, since it gets ported form pc to console, and not the other way around, so no problems for me.

No, don't you understand, consoles ruin everything, and anyone who plays games on a console is a retard because... they are.

OT; TBH I don't really care. I generally make it my policy to buy multi-platform games on my console (PS3) in the event that buy the game and find my PC won't run it. Doubt I'll buy it on anything though.

Vhite:

twistedheat15:
Nice, now we can spend the next couple months listening to "ZOMG WTF BLIZZARD! I wanted years for a new Diablos, and now it's getting dumb down for shitty consoles, I'm boycotting this game, who's with me!"

And yet they are going to buy it as soon as it comes out.

Collectors ed. at that, already paid pre-ordered while they're still posting rants about it just for the sake of bitching.

SupahGamuh:
Uhhh... yay for consoles?.

Don't hold your breath just yet, this is Blizzard we're talking about, even if the console version is real, it'd be ready "when it's done" and we all know what it means.

It means that our great grandkids will be playing the same game we'll (hopefully) be playing in the next year.

OT: How the hell would that work?

I remain uninterested. Until they get serious about producing a good PC version and treating their PC customers with respect, I don't give a damn what else they are doing at Blizzard.

twistedheat15:
Nice, now we can spend the next couple months listening to "ZOMG WTF BLIZZARD! I wanted years for a new Diablos, and now it's getting dumb down for shitty consoles, I'm boycotting this game, who's with me!"

Umm... They probably won't dumb it down for PC just because it MIGHT (Putting some major fucking emphasis on the might here.) be coming to consoles in God knows how long. Not worth boycotting honestly...

Hammeroj:
Right, so being reasonable is what motivated them to have three separate payments incorporated into the D3 RMAH, region lock their games, remove any form of P2P, and, with their last one, have an incredibly draconian and restricting custom game system.

I'm not sure I'd call the Starcraft 2 custom game system draconian, I've played a lot of Starcraft 2 custom games and they seem really varied and to say the game hasn't been out for a year there are a lot of them. The things I've seen people do with the Starcraft 2 map editor are far from restricted as well, I've seen someone recreate Touhou in it and Blizzard have done their own maps showing off the capabilities of it.

The microtransaction thing is just the same as in TF2, you can either grind the random drops yourself or spend a bit of money and get them quickly, I don't see the difference.

Don't really care about region locking, Blizzard games have always had region 1, 2 and 3 servers. You could join the other servers but you'd lag like hell for no benefit so why bother. Not having LAN support does suck for SC2 but did anyone even play Diablo over LAN? Anyway it's hardly a greedy decision, they don't gain any less money by you buying D3 to play over LAN than over battle.net.

Yes! Unless all my friends and me gravitate away from gaming when we go to college, I think I know what we're all going to be doing when this game comes out!

<3

Literally dream come true when I finally have it on my Xbox.

Pearwood:

Hammeroj:
Right, so being reasonable is what motivated them to have three separate payments incorporated into the D3 RMAH, region lock their games, remove any form of P2P, and, with their last one, have an incredibly draconian and restricting custom game system.

I'm not sure I'd call the Starcraft 2 custom game system draconian, I've played a lot of Starcraft 2 custom games and they seem really varied and to say the game hasn't been out for a year there are a lot of them. The things I've seen people do with the Starcraft 2 map editor are far from restricted as well, I've seen someone recreate Touhou in it and Blizzard have done their own maps showing off the capabilities of it.

Point me to the part where I said anything about the SC2 map editor. What I was talking about was Battle.net. Here's a couple of pointers:
1) Limits on map size
2) Limits on total size of uploaded maps
3) Inability to create named game rooms
4) Hardly any player control within the system
5) Censorship of the most retarded kind (pimp, suicide, god, blow, black, white are some of the words you literally can't even upload onto Battle.net within a map in any form).

Stifles freedom and creativity. Boy, is that worth the couple of theoretical super-casual sales Blizzard gained by these moves.

The microtransaction thing is just the same as in TF2, you can either grind the random drops yourself or spend a bit of money and get them quickly, I don't see the difference.

First, reading comprehension, I did not say I have problems with the idea of a real money auction house within that post, even though I do, because encouraging that shit instead of curbing it wherever possible will only make the game's economy worse.

No, what I said was their idea of paying money for simply putting up an auction is unreasonable.

Don't really care about region locking, Blizzard games have always had region 1, 2 and 3 servers. You could join the other servers but you'd lag like hell for no benefit so why bother. Not having LAN support does suck for SC2 but did anyone even play Diablo over LAN? Anyway it's hardly a greedy decision, they don't gain any less money by you buying D3 to play over LAN than over battle.net.

How about this for a benefit - getting to play with people from other continents. This gets really relevant if you've ever made friends on other continents, or are doing it for competitive reasons. Fact of the matter is - you have to shell out another sixty bucks to do that, when all it takes is a simple IP change in a log file as to what authentication server to connect to. This is -not- reasonable no matter what way you spin it.

If this forum of online going people is anything to go by, something like two thirds of all the people who played Diablo 2 (and by that I mean bought) have not even stepped foot on Battle.net, with about half of those who did still preferring to play with lower delay, no disconnects or desyncs on LAN. Or TCP/IP rooms. Step out of your experience for a moment, have you seen any of the polls or the comments?

Well, they at least think they do stand to gain more money off of it. Are you kidding me? None of the changes to Battle.net are there to provide a better service, indeed, in SC2's case, most of the places where it counts were 3 steps backward. If those weren't business decisions, they're design decisions of a deranged mind.

No wonder they are suckifying up diablo with no mods and no offline play. They are shooting for the big money.

Blizzard, you used to be cool.

Why do so many people have issues with a company making money and widely available products??? Not everyone can afford putting the hundreds of dollars down to keep PCs up to date.

jumjalalabash:
Why do so many people have issues with a company making money and widely available products??? Not everyone can afford putting the hundreds of dollars down to keep PCs up to date.

Because it will come at the cost of quality, plain and simple.

Well then... I'm half expecting every new Blizzard post on Diablo 3 to come with a troll face captioned with "U mad?". I've got no problem with it coming to console but it just seems liek they're doing everything they can to irk their core fan base.

Hammeroj:

jumjalalabash:
Why do so many people have issues with a company making money and widely available products??? Not everyone can afford putting the hundreds of dollars down to keep PCs up to date.

Because it will come at the cost of quality, plain and simple.

... You do realize the company in question is Blizzard right? You know the guys who routinely delay games for a decade before releasing and patch them constantly. You know the one of the few companies who believe in quality control and management. Are you lost or something?

jumjalalabash:
Why do so many people have issues with a company making money and widely available products??? Not everyone can afford putting the hundreds of dollars down to keep PCs up to date.

To put it bluntly, outside of the convenience factor, consoles are inferior to most gaming PCs in every imaginable way. Anything you can do on a console can be done far better on a PC. This means you can build games to really shine for PCs but when consoles get thrown into the mix they have to start making adjustments for said consoles limitations.

Look at some of the truly great PC exclusive titles throughout history like any number of the Civilization games, Baulder's Gate I and II, The Icewind Dale Games, Age of Empires, the list could go on but none of those games would have been a fraction as good as they were if they were designed from the get go with idea of porting them to an inferior console unit. The reason being because a console could not do any of those games I just mentioned the slightest bit of justice.

Consoles are catching up though but they are not there yet. They the Xbox 360 and PS3 are still multiple steps behind the PC in almost every area. One day maybe consoles will catch up but that day isn't now and as a result designing a PC title with the idea of porting it to a console will still result in a loss of quality on one end or the other.

My first Diablo experience was with Diablo 1 on PS1. So this makes me smile... course im getting Diablo 3 on the PC, but still...

StriderShinryu:

cursedseishi:
Yep, they're just trying to figure out how they'll muscle in their Real-$ Auction House system into the console port most likely. And just like the Always-On DRM, that will NEVER make it to consoles, which is a good thing.

I could definitely see this being the biggest issue. There is no way MS is going to allow a cash market system in an Live enabled game so unless Blizzard goes PS3 exclusive it will take some work to make things work out.

The game itself will run perfectly fine. In fact, I'd the PSX version of Diablo 1 worked better on console than it did on the PC outside of the positively silly memory card requirement that it had.

If they DON'T bring the auction house and the stupid DRM, I'll get this on PS3. Worse controls are a small price to pay to play and get the best gear, and not immediately be out-classed by an 8-year old with his dad's credit card.

What has two thumbs and is not getting this game?

THIS GUY

Xanthious:

jumjalalabash:
Why do so many people have issues with a company making money and widely available products??? Not everyone can afford putting the hundreds of dollars down to keep PCs up to date.

To put it bluntly, outside of the convenience factor, consoles are inferior to most gaming PCs in every imaginable way. Anything you can do on a console can be done far better on a PC. This means you can build games to really shine for PCs but when consoles get thrown into the mix they have to start making adjustments for said consoles limitations.

Look at some of the truly great PC exclusive titles throughout history like any number of the Civilization games, Baulder's Gate I and II, The Icewind Dale Games, Age of Empires, the list could go on but none of those games would have been a fraction as good as they were if they were designed from the get go with idea of porting them to an inferior console unit. The reason being because a console could not do any of those games I just mentioned the slightest bit of justice.

Consoles are catching up though but they are not there yet. They the Xbox 360 and PS3 are still multiple steps behind the PC in almost every area. One day maybe consoles will catch up but that day isn't now and as a result designing a PC title with the idea of porting it to a console will still result in a loss of quality on one end or the other.

For every PC game you can name, I can name a console game that would never work on anything but the highest tier gaming rigs. Bayonetta, any of the Dynasty games.

But you missed his point. I bought my PS3 and my current PC 2 years ago. My PS3 for $200 used, my PC for $500 new. And now, when any game comes out for the PS3, I can play it and enjoy it. Any game past August that comes out for the PC I can't play, because my PC isn't good enough. So I'm gonna have to plunk down another $350 to upgrade my PC. Many people don't have the disposable income for that.

jumjalalabash:
... You do realize the company in question is Blizzard right? You know the guys who routinely delay games for a decade before releasing and patch them constantly. You know the one of the few companies who believe in quality control and management. Are you lost or something?

I'm not lost. Quite the contrary - you seem to be. What does them being Blizzard have to do with anything? Are you not aware that Diablo's skills are not restricted to being completely directional? There is physically no way for the console experience to be as good as the PC one until we get some sort of mind-reading peripheral. The controllers are not good enough.

Well, this will make me play Diablo for the first time ever.

Can't wait to give it a shot.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
For every PC game you can name, I can name a console game that would never work on anything but the highest tier gaming rigs. Bayonetta, any of the Dynasty games.

But you missed his point. I bought my PS3 and my current PC 2 years ago. My PS3 for $200 used, my PC for $500 new. And now, when any game comes out for the PS3, I can play it and enjoy it. Any game past August that comes out for the PC I can't play, because my PC isn't good enough. So I'm gonna have to plunk down another $350 to upgrade my PC. Many people don't have the disposable income for that.

That's pretty much what I was saying. The only thing you get for buying a console you wouldn't get from a PC is convenience. The price issue doesn't hold up with me. Five or six years ago I would have agreed with you but now with a little bit of shopping around and work you can put together a nice gaming rig for right around 400 dollars. Will you have to upgrade it in time? Maybe, but likely that should only cost 100, maybe 200 depending on how fancy you want to get.

I put down about 500 for my PC two and a half years ago and, outside of some RAM, I've yet to upgrade anything on it and it has ran everything I've thrown at it without issue. The bottom line is that once upon a time PC's required constant upgrading and came with a high price point but anymore that is largely not the case unless you have to be right on the cutting edge.

However, despite all of this, the point still holds that PCs are superior to consoles in almost every conceivable fashion except convenience. If you are someone that just wants to throw a disc in the unit and play a game then, sure, consoles are probably for you. However, you'll be getting the product that's being produced for the lazy unwashed masses. Simply put you'll be getting the "Big Mac" of gaming. I guess it just comes down to how much you want to get out of your gaming experience in the end. If you are looking for depth, or countless other things, you will always get your best experience from a PC.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
For every PC game you can name, I can name a console game that would never work on anything but the highest tier gaming rigs. Bayonetta, any of the Dynasty games.

And that is why this forum needs a wall of shame. This statement would not have been true 4 years ago, let alone now.

Hammeroj:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
For every PC game you can name, I can name a console game that would never work on anything but the highest tier gaming rigs. Bayonetta, any of the Dynasty games.

And that is why this forum needs a wall of shame. This statement would not have been true 4 years ago, let alone now.

You try and tell me Bayonetta would work on a PC. Where the slightest bit of frame rate drop could kill you. And when you have 200 or 300 dudes on screen in Dynasty, unless you have a top end rig, it's gonna lag hardcore. My friend has a top end rig, and it lags trying to render the 300 Tier 1 and 2 tanks he runs into bases in Supreme Commander. And those are each about 3 or 4 pixels in size.

Xanthious:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
For every PC game you can name, I can name a console game that would never work on anything but the highest tier gaming rigs. Bayonetta, any of the Dynasty games.

But you missed his point. I bought my PS3 and my current PC 2 years ago. My PS3 for $200 used, my PC for $500 new. And now, when any game comes out for the PS3, I can play it and enjoy it. Any game past August that comes out for the PC I can't play, because my PC isn't good enough. So I'm gonna have to plunk down another $350 to upgrade my PC. Many people don't have the disposable income for that.

That's pretty much what I was saying. The only thing you get for buying a console you wouldn't get from a PC is convenience. The price issue doesn't hold up with me. Five or six years ago I would have agreed with you but now with a little bit of shopping around and work you can put together a nice gaming rig for right around 400 dollars. Will you have to upgrade it in time? Maybe, but likely that should only cost 100, maybe 200 depending on how fancy you want to get.

I put down about 500 for my PC two and a half years ago and, outside of some RAM, I've yet to upgrade anything on it and it has ran everything I've thrown at it without issue. The bottom line is that once upon a time PC's required constant upgrading and came with a high price point but anymore that is largely not the case unless you have to be right on the cutting edge.

However, despite all of this, the point still holds that PCs are superior to consoles in almost every conceivable fashion except convenience. If you are someone that just wants to throw a disc in the unit and play a game then, sure, consoles are probably for you. However, you'll be getting the product that's being produced for the lazy unwashed masses. Simply put you'll be getting the "Big Mac" of gaming. I guess it just comes down to how much you want to get out of your gaming experience in the end. If you are looking for depth, or countless other things, you will always get your best experience from a PC.

Let me give you a better example. Devil May Cry 3 was released on PC and PS2. I got it on PS2, and a friend got it for me on PC. The experience on the PC was miserable. My PC was good at the time, but during large battles, the game would lag heavily. More than once I died because frame rate would drop massively, and when it suddenly went back up, I was unprepared and was killed.

My experience on PS2 was substantially better. The bottom line is, for the amount of money you throw at a PC every 2 years, it had better be a better gaming rig. But for people whose income is very limited, the console will always be a better choice.

Double Post, sorry.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Hammeroj:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
For every PC game you can name, I can name a console game that would never work on anything but the highest tier gaming rigs. Bayonetta, any of the Dynasty games.

And that is why this forum needs a wall of shame. This statement would not have been true 4 years ago, let alone now.

You try and tell me Bayonetta would work on a PC. Where the slightest bit of frame rate drop could kill you. And when you have 200 or 300 dudes on screen in Dynasty, unless you have a top end rig, it's gonna lag hardcore. My friend has a top end rig, and it lags trying to render the 300 Tier 1 and 2 tanks he runs into bases in Supreme Commander. And those are each about 3 or 4 pixels in size.

Consoles aren't some kind of magic machine Oo

PC's have higher processing power and could run any console game as long as it is optimized for the PC and not for console structures.
Btw frame rate drops are more common in console games when they want to render fancy stuff and bring in fancy physical stuff like mist etc.

I'm totally for this.
My poor gaming PC died on me and at the moment I'm too broke to do anything about it.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
You try and tell me Bayonetta would work on a PC.

Because PCs outperformed the PS3 right after (if not even earlier than) it released.

Where the slightest bit of frame rate drop could kill you.

I don't see how that's not preventable.

And when you have 200 or 300 dudes on screen in Dynasty, unless you have a top end rig, it's gonna lag hardcore.

The same Dynasty Warriors 7 that's getting released on Xbox 360, which has a 512 megabyte memory pool?

My friend has a top end rig, and it lags trying to render the 300 Tier 1 and 2 tanks he runs into bases in Supreme Commander. And those are each about 3 or 4 pixels in size.

What does he do with his top end rig, use it as a grill to make hamburgers? Did the grease fuck it up that hard, or is it actually not anywhere close to being a high-end PC?

Fact of the matter is that mid-level PCs now are multitudes of times more powerful than either of the consoles, and high-end PCs are even more so. If you don't know that, you don't know anything.

bakan:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Hammeroj:
And that is why this forum needs a wall of shame. This statement would not have been true 4 years ago, let alone now.

You try and tell me Bayonetta would work on a PC. Where the slightest bit of frame rate drop could kill you. And when you have 200 or 300 dudes on screen in Dynasty, unless you have a top end rig, it's gonna lag hardcore. My friend has a top end rig, and it lags trying to render the 300 Tier 1 and 2 tanks he runs into bases in Supreme Commander. And those are each about 3 or 4 pixels in size.

Consoles aren't some kind of magic machine Oo

PC's have higher processing power and could run any console game as long as it is optimized for the PC and not for console structures.
Btw frame rate drops are more common in console games when they want to render fancy stuff and bring in fancy physical stuff like mist etc.

All I can say from experience is that Oblivion nearly murdered my last computer, I was forced to remove all non-essential graphics. And without them, the game looked terrible. My PS3 ran it fine and it looked great.

The average person cannot afford the top end range PCs that allow them to surpass consoles. My friend Mike has such a rig. It cost him $850. That's a PS3 and 7 new games, btw. Just so he can play Battlefield 3 with all the fully rendered dust.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

bakan:
snip

All I can say from experience is that Oblivion nearly murdered my last computer, I was forced to remove all non-essential graphics. And without them, the game looked terrible. My PS3 ran it fine and it looked great.

The average person cannot afford the top end range PCs that allow them to surpass consoles. My friend Mike has such a rig. It cost him $850. That's a PS3 and 7 new games, btw. Just so he can play Battlefield 3 with all the fully rendered dust.

I guess for 850$ he runs a rig with water cooling etc so he shouldn't have any problems with any game nowadays, or he just got ripped off with a pre-built one...
And you don't have to invest so much money, 400-500$ is enough to play all current games on high settings.

Hammeroj:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
You try and tell me Bayonetta would work on a PC.

Because PCs outperformed PS3 right after (if not even earlier than) it released.

Where the slightest bit of frame rate drop could kill you.

I don't see how that's not preventable.

And when you have 200 or 300 dudes on screen in Dynasty, unless you have a top end rig, it's gonna lag hardcore.

The same Dynasty Warriors 7 that's getting released on Xbox 360, which has a 512 megabyte memory pool?

My friend has a top end rig, and it lags trying to render the 300 Tier 1 and 2 tanks he runs into bases in Supreme Commander. And those are each about 3 or 4 pixels in size.

What does he do with his top end rig, use it as a grill to make hamburgers? Did the grease fuck it up that hard, or is it actually not anywhere close to being a high-end PC?

Fact of the matter is that mid-level PCs now are multitudes of times more powerful than either of the consoles, and high-end PCs are even more so. If you don't know that, you don't know anything.

Mid-end my rear. His rig is:

Graphics Card: GeForce GTX 460 1 GB
Processor: Intel Qaud-Core Q6600

That's hardly a "mid-tier" computer, unless you feel like throwing down $1000 for the QX9600. And it lagged hard. That computer was $925. I have never had frame rate problems on my PS3.

bakan:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

bakan:
snip

All I can say from experience is that Oblivion nearly murdered my last computer, I was forced to remove all non-essential graphics. And without them, the game looked terrible. My PS3 ran it fine and it looked great.

The average person cannot afford the top end range PCs that allow them to surpass consoles. My friend Mike has such a rig. It cost him $850. That's a PS3 and 7 new games, btw. Just so he can play Battlefield 3 with all the fully rendered dust.

I guess for 850$ he runs a rig with water cooling etc so he shouldn't have any problems with any game nowadays, or he just got ripped off with a pre-built one...
And you don't have to invest so much money, 400-500$ is enough to play all current games on high settings.

400-500 is BS. A low-end Quad-Core is at least $150 by itself. My graphics card is mid-end, and it was $125. That's $275 before we even get into the other stuff.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here