Diablo III is Running on Consoles at Blizzard

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Diablo III is Running on Consoles at Blizzard

image

Could Blizzard's newest dungeon crawler be a hit in your living room?

If you're still holding out hope that Diablo III will eventually appear on home consoles, Blizzard's recent chat with Polygon should be music to your ears. According to Blizzard's Chief Creative Officer, Rob Pardo, the developer has fully playable versions of Diablo III running on unspecified consoles.

Unfortunately, the company isn't ready to make a console version of Diablo III an official product quite yet. Right now it seems Blizzard is more focused on patching and adding on to the existing experience for PC and Mac than expanding to a console audience.

"We've got builds up and running on it," Pardo explains. "We're hoping to get it far enough along where we can make it an official project, but we're not quite ready to release stuff about it, but it's looking pretty cool."

If Diablo III does end up on the Xbox 360, PS3, Wii U, or perhaps even an as-of-yet unannounced console, it wouldn't be the first time the series hit the living room; The original Diablo title made its way to the first PlayStation system in 1998, roughly two years after its debut on PC.

Source: Polygon

Permalink

Good they have thier priorities set...

... I mean, finsihing the original story is thier greatest priority.

Make it playable offline with no real money auction house and I may actually get it.

Fappy:
Make it playable offline with no real money auction house and I may actually get it.

same here, I've for a long time wanted to get into Diablo, but I haven't had an up-to-date PC since 2002, so I'll be glad of a console port, looks like a good game

Oly J:

Fappy:
Make it playable offline with no real money auction house and I may actually get it.

same here, I've for a long time wanted to get into Diablo, but I haven't had an up-to-date PC since 2002, so I'll be glad of a console port, looks like a good game

Diablo 1 was a 90s game so yyou should be fine to play that.

I'd like to see how they swing the RMAH on consoles. Also, how's that pvp patch coming?

Total shocker... it's not like we noticed they designed the whole thing around consoles.
The only reason they haven't released it for them yet is because MS and Sony won't let them play that black market deal alone.

Fappy:
Make it playable offline with no real money auction house and I may actually get it.

The funny thing is, they may have to!

Not all console-jocks have internet.

fwiffo:
I'd like to see how they swing the RMAH on consoles. Also, how's that pvp patch coming?

You mean the one that was supposed to come out at the beginning of september and then before christmas? Ya good question where is that lol

This is funny.

I have Diablo 1 for the PS1, and I played it quite often. I have Diablo 2 for the PC, wished it came it to consoles but never did and still play it today. Now they're thinking of getting Diablo 3, a game I've never purchased, for the consoles.

And I'm STILL not interested.

This would've been great news for console players if we were in 2011, before we learned that Diablo 3 is actually shit.

Yes, it could. I don't know why this is even remotely a question, and I don't know who could be even remotely surprised by this. It was clear since the very first hints from Blizzard's side and seeing how they developed D3.

So they successfully designed and ported their shitbiscuit of a game to consoles.
Good for them.

Why do I feel like Spoony in the Betrayal Song now ? Well now I guess only starcraft series is the last product that blizzard makes me feel intrested in. Hopefully they dont kill it off with any retarded ideas.

The Forces of Chaos:
Why do I feel like Spoony in the Betrayal Song now ? Well now I guess only starcraft series is the last product that blizzard makes me feel intrested in. Hopefully they dont kill it off with any retarded ideas.

Like splitting the sequel into three games rather than releasing a multi-disc game? :P

It's been said before, but make it offline and I'll consider getting it.
I waited years to play Diablo III but dropped it the second I heard it had the online only requirement.

Mr.K.:
Total shocker... it's not like we noticed they designed the whole thing around consoles.
The only reason they haven't released it for them yet is because MS and Sony won't let them play that black market deal alone.

The PC game developer blizzard designed the sequel to a pc exclusive game for console, then released it exclusively for pc, then later said theyre considering porting it to console; which means the game was originally designed for console?

RJ 17:

The Forces of Chaos:
Why do I feel like Spoony in the Betrayal Song now ? Well now I guess only starcraft series is the last product that blizzard makes me feel intrested in. Hopefully they dont kill it off with any retarded ideas.

Like splitting the sequel into three games rather than releasing a multi-disc game? :P

Aye your right about that. This is getting depressing. I can only hope that the campain will not such as much as wol and will be still fun in multiplayer.

Oly J:

Fappy:
Make it playable offline with no real money auction house and I may actually get it.

same here, I've for a long time wanted to get into Diablo, but I haven't had an up-to-date PC since 2002, so I'll be glad of a console port, looks like a good game

and whose fault is that?
yes, yours.

Diablo 3 for consoles, and they dont believe the end of the world is coming....

RJ 17:

The Forces of Chaos:
Why do I feel like Spoony in the Betrayal Song now ? Well now I guess only starcraft series is the last product that blizzard makes me feel intrested in. Hopefully they dont kill it off with any retarded ideas.

Like splitting the sequel into three games rather than releasing a multi-disc game? :P

I still don't quite get this.

The first Starcraft 2 is as big as Starcraft 1.

They just specialized the single player campaign into a big Terran mission.

then they'll expand into Zerg for the second one which will likely be larger than brood wars.

A decade since their last game and they'll only have been adding a single extra expansion pack.

What other company with a popular product has that kind of restraint?

Fluffythepoo:
The PC game developer blizzard designed the sequel to a pc exclusive game for console, then released it exclusively for pc, then later said theyre considering porting it to console; which means the game was originally designed for console?

Not exactly. What it can mean is that Blizzard thought ahead and made certain design choices to make it better fit for a console release. Things like arbitrarily limiting the number of non-mouse skills to 4 (the magic number), not having a whole lot of control inputs overall with (over)simplified healing systems or making inventory management a thing of the past by turning all items into size 1x1 or 1x2.

It's a similar thing with The Witcher 2. We got a game that had a whole slew of curious design choices, ones that are generally massively indicative of console design, and it was the least surprising turn of events in the world that they came out a month or two later to reveal their plans for a console release.

theultimateend:

RJ 17:

The Forces of Chaos:
Why do I feel like Spoony in the Betrayal Song now ? Well now I guess only starcraft series is the last product that blizzard makes me feel intrested in. Hopefully they dont kill it off with any retarded ideas.

Like splitting the sequel into three games rather than releasing a multi-disc game? :P

I still don't quite get this.

The first Starcraft 2 is as big as Starcraft 1.

They just specialized the single player campaign into a big Terran mission.

then they'll expand into Zerg for the second one which will likely be larger than brood wars.

A decade since their last game and they'll only have been adding a single extra expansion pack.

What other company with a popular product has that kind of restraint?

Storywise, Starcraft 2 is basically about as long as any one campaign from Starcraft or Warcraft 3. It's 80% filler, which is why Blizzard's excuse of "we want to tell an epic story", never mind the actual quality of what is being told, is absolute bullshit.

Hammeroj:
Storywise, Starcraft 2 is basically about as long as any one campaign from Starcraft or Warcraft 3. It's 80% filler, which is why Blizzard's excuse of "we want to tell an epic story", never mind the actual quality of what is being told, is absolute bullshit.

Ah so subjectively its smaller.

Ok, as long as its just people talking out their butts.

I was just worried there might be actual numbers behind the stuff.

For the record I liked SC1 better, I just find the subjectivity being passed off as an objective truth to be obnoxious.

theultimateend:

Hammeroj:
Storywise, Starcraft 2 is basically about as long as any one campaign from Starcraft or Warcraft 3. It's 80% filler, which is why Blizzard's excuse of "we want to tell an epic story", never mind the actual quality of what is being told, is absolute bullshit.

Ah so subjectively its smaller.

Ok, as long as its just people talking out their butts.

I was just worried there might be actual numbers behind the stuff.

For the record I liked SC1 better, I just find the subjectivity being passed off as an objective truth to be obnoxious.

Wow, so you think "the amount of story development that happens in the game" is subjective? Okay, I've no patience for this nonsense.

If I in any way cared about Blizzard, Diablo, or Diablo 3 specifically I still wouldn't get it for a console. I would know that I'd get my patches late or not at all.

From the sources I heed, I've heard NOTHING positive about D3 WHATSOEVER, so I hope that they eventually decide to finish it, people have their fun, and then we can all move on as a species.

Considering it's built for the console from the ground up, this isn't particularly surprising.

Hammeroj:

Fluffythepoo:
The PC game developer blizzard designed the sequel to a pc exclusive game for console, then released it exclusively for pc, then later said theyre considering porting it to console; which means the game was originally designed for console?

Not exactly. What it can mean is that Blizzard thought ahead and made certain design choices to make it better fit for a console release. Things like arbitrarily limiting the number of non-mouse skills to 4 (the magic number), not having a whole lot of control inputs overall with (over)simplified healing systems or making inventory management a thing of the past by turning all items into size 1x1 or 1x2.

It's a similar thing with The Witcher 2. We got a game that had a whole slew of curious design choices, ones that are generally massively indicative of console design, and it was the least surprising turn of events in the world that they came out a month or two later to reveal their plans for a console release.

The number wasn't arbitrary it was the result of months of testing and was chosen for balancing purposes (look up old d3 uis, anywhere from 2 to 8 buttons), the new healing system is more complicated than diablo 2s, and fixing a bad inventory system has nothing to do with console or pc, if anything the drastically expanded inventory would much worse on console.

Also how is 7/26 missions being being optional make the game 80% filler?

Fluffythepoo:
The number wasn't arbitrary it was the result of months of testing and was chosen for balancing purposes (look up old d3 uis, anywhere from 2 to 8 buttons), the new healing system is more complicated than diablo 2s, and fixing a bad inventory system has nothing to do with console or pc, if anything the drastically expanded inventory would much worse on console.

Also how is 7/26 missions being being optional make the game 80% filler?

And the Witcher 2 alpha had the same control scheme as the first Witcher. Unless you're going to talk specifics about what balancing purposes it serves, I'm not buying it.

The new healing system consists of 1 button. It may be more "complicated" than D2's, I don't know in what way and I don't know why the selling point would be "more complicated than a 13 year old game", but it's extremely simplistic in nature. See Path of Exile for an actual improvement of mechanics as opposed to what is essentially chucking the baby out with the bathwater.

Fixing a bad inventory? Do explain. It has, potentially, something to do with PC or console if the new version is much simpler, easier to use and so on. Which it is. The fact that it's bigger means next to nothing negative when there's no inventory management to speak of. As is, it would probably work better than list-based alternatives.

Damn, you got me. Thank god every story mission actually progressed the story. I really don't know why you're assuming only optional missions can be filler.

Hammeroj:
The new healing system consists of 1 button. It may be more "complicated" than D2's, I don't know in what way and I don't know why the selling point would be "more complicated than a 13 year old game", but it's extremely simplistic in nature. See Path of Exile for an actual improvement of mechanics as opposed to what is essentially chucking the baby out with the bathwater.
Fixing a bad inventory? Do explain. It has, potentially, something to do with PC or console if the new version is much simpler, easier to use and so on. Which it is. The fact that it's bigger means next to nothing negative when there's no inventory management to speak of. As is, it would probably work better than list-based alternatives.

Did you play the game? Seems you either didn't or you're venting your deaths due to potion cooldown on the system.
The healing system consists of four things: a potion with 30 seconds cooldown, health globes that drops from enemies, gaining life from attacks with life on hit and life steal and finally actually avoiding damage.
The second is your main healing source when leveling up to 60, while the third is the main when playing on Inferno.

I've just read the Path of Exile link you sent and, and it's pretty cool. Diablo 3 could be a better game with it, but not with the "potions with afixes" part. That would only make normal potions useless, since the game would be balanced around the rare potions, and in the end would be yet another item you'd have to buy for your equipment.

I agree that the only thing that was broken in Diablo 2's inventory, was it's ridiculous small size. D3 fixed that giving a big inventory, but also decreased the item size to either 1x1 or 1x2.
Being a fan of inventory tetris, can't say I'm happy. But since the game is focused in grinding lots of items, bigger items would just be a hassle, adding nothing. (Exactly the same it is in D2, since when your inventory is full you can just use your TP).

Also, on an earlier point you made: D3 limits you to 6 skills, not 4. Supposedly that number maximizes the unique skills sets you can have, if you choose one skill from each slot.

darkszero:
Did you play the game? Seems you either didn't or you're venting your deaths due to potion cooldown on the system.
The healing system consists of four things: a potion with 30 seconds cooldown, health globes that drops from enemies, gaining life from attacks with life on hit and life steal and finally actually avoiding damage.
The second is your main healing source when leveling up to 60, while the third is the main when playing on Inferno.

Yup, I did play it. And I have little to no clue as to why you're trying to explain what healing mechanics the game has. Was the conversation about how the D3 design lends itself better to consoles or was it not?

I've just read the Path of Exile link you sent and, and it's pretty cool. Diablo 3 could be a better game with it, but not with the "potions with afixes" part. That would only make normal potions useless, since the game would be balanced around the rare potions, and in the end would be yet another item you'd have to buy for your equipment.

Man, I think you're stretching hard here. It would not "only make normal potions useless", it grants an insane number of legitimate approaches to what you want your potions to accomplish. Do you want to carry around 5 healing flasks? 4 healing and 1 mana? 3 mana and 2 granite (massively increases armor)? Do you want your potions to recharge faster, heal quicker (hell, even instantly) or have slower effects over a longer period of time? Bonus movement speed, dodge chance, increased resistances, immune to knockback?

I also don't particularly buy your disapproval of white items being useless in what is essentially a loot-based genre. Do you have problems with white weapons and armor being useless, too?

A couple of more things. First, there's no such thing as rare potions. Magic is as far as they go, and there are no extremely rare affixes that I know of. Every potion there is is pretty easy to get by yourself as the currency items that turn loot from white to magic or reroll properties are plenty. You don't "have to buy" flasks, and there's no such thing as a best flask setup. The only thing you need to do is be at least mildly smart about what flasks you use. Once that is settled, choose your approach and have at it.

I agree that the only thing that was broken in Diablo 2's inventory, was it's ridiculous small size. D3 fixed that giving a big inventory, but also decreased the item size to either 1x1 or 1x2.
Being a fan of inventory tetris, can't say I'm happy. But since the game is focused in grinding lots of items, bigger items would just be a hassle, adding nothing. (Exactly the same it is in D2, since when your inventory is full you can just use your TP).

I'm not a fan of inventory tetris in and of itself. An inventory that's bigger is a welcome change. What I'm protesting here is that this simplification comes at the expense of items feeling like actual items. The sense of scale is lost - a belt is the same size as a ring, boots are of the same size as chest armor and so on. I don't know about you, but when an item feels less like an item and more like a slot for stats, I think the loot game suffers for it.

Also, on an earlier point you made: D3 limits you to 6 skills, not 4. Supposedly that number maximizes the unique skills sets you can have, if you choose one skill from each slot.

I'm pretty sure I said something like 4 non-mouse skills. The left and right triggers would stand in for the mouse buttons, and the 4 magic face buttons would do the rest.

Edit: Oh, right, and how exactly is the max number of combinations:
A) A balance decision;
B) Beneficial for the player?

Going for the consoles. A very cheap grab by Blizzard They're getting desperate. Maybe they hop that console gamers will have lower standards and not mind their grindfest. That or they're realizing that alienating a significant chunk of their market off the bat was a bad idea and are trying to make up for it.

Or perhaps since a considerable chunk of the PC playerbase has gotten bored and moved on to other games they can tap the console game market hping that the console gamers haven't heard of any of the problems and annoyances of the game.

Honestly though, I hope blizzard learns from their mistakes. They need to make *GAMES* Not manufacture Revenue Streams.
I played D1.. and D2:LOD I've been a fan of the series for a while now but that Always on Requirement...kinda a game breaker. COme on, D2 was always a game I played when I was tired of online. And while you can play solo... net connection can be a little sketchy.

If they keep losing player base though, they may have to kill that requiremen, but we all know why. THe RMAH. See they know if left offline people would simple find ways to hack items into their inventory and ba, no need for RMAH.

Hammeroj:

Fluffythepoo:
The number wasn't arbitrary it was the result of months of testing and was chosen for balancing purposes (look up old d3 uis, anywhere from 2 to 8 buttons), the new healing system is more complicated than diablo 2s, and fixing a bad inventory system has nothing to do with console or pc, if anything the drastically expanded inventory would much worse on console.

Also how is 7/26 missions being being optional make the game 80% filler?

And the Witcher 2 alpha had the same control scheme as the first Witcher. Unless you're going to talk specifics about what balancing purposes it serves, I'm not buying it.

The new healing system consists of 1 button. It may be more "complicated" than D2's, I don't know in what way and I don't know why the selling point would be "more complicated than a 13 year old game", but it's extremely simplistic in nature. See Path of Exile for an actual improvement of mechanics as opposed to what is essentially chucking the baby out with the bathwater.

Fixing a bad inventory? Do explain. It has, potentially, something to do with PC or console if the new version is much simpler, easier to use and so on. Which it is. The fact that it's bigger means next to nothing negative when there's no inventory management to speak of. As is, it would probably work better than list-based alternatives.

Damn, you got me. Thank god every story mission actually progressed the story. I really don't know why you're assuming only optional missions can be filler.

Dont think ill be digging through 2 year old forum posts to relive waiting for diablo 3, but i still remember the jay wilson quote "7 buttons was too many" xD(thats very funny btw) But lets assume i lied, the 6 buttons was arbitrary and they didnt do any testing to see if other numbers would work. Are you saying they made a fundamental game mechanic choice in a game thats almost entirely dependent upon good game mechanics for the purpose of maybe one day porting to console?

It has 1 button because they moved away from the pot system, because its a boring mechanic that didnt actually add anything. Pots are a way to compensate for a poorly implemented resource/health system, Blizzards solution was to make their system good enough to not need it. Poe moving to make pots a fundamental mechanic isnt an improvement if the potion system is a bad system for the arpg genre.

You said the inventory system was fixed to make life easier on consoles, then i said it was fixed because it was a bad system (if you think the old item scaling system was a good one then we'll just smile and nod at eachother) And the reason itd be worse on console is a giant blocky gui system like this one are incredibly tedious to navigate with a gamepad. Its not impossible by any means, its just worse.

D3s system does lend itself to consoles, but saying blizzard sacrificed game mechanics because they secretly always planned on making a console version is bullshit. And saying it was obvious from the start is even smellier bullshit.

and im just not going defend the critically acclaimed starcraft 2 campaign, if you didnt like it, thats your burden

BigTuk:
Going for the consoles. A very cheap grab by Blizzard They're getting desperate.

Kind of like how they were "desperate" back when they made a PS1 version of Diablo I?

See they know if left offline people would simple find ways to hack items into their inventory and ba, no need for RMAH.

You actually could hack items into your inventory in Diablo II (for both single-player and multiplayer) and that still had a thriving RMAH, heck it had multiple thriving RMAHs. If they hadn't added it, somebody else would have.

Fluffythepoo:
Dont think ill be digging through 2 year old forum posts to relive waiting for diablo 3, but i still remember the jay wilson quote "7 buttons was too many" xD(thats very funny btw) But lets assume i lied, the 6 buttons was arbitrary and they didnt do any testing to see if other numbers would work. Are you saying they made a fundamental game mechanic choice in a game thats almost entirely dependent upon good game mechanics for the purpose of maybe one day porting to console?

Wait, so do you think his "7 buttons was too many" quote is funny or do you think he had a point?

There's no need to assume you lied, all I want is for you to make the case for limiting the number to 6. Quotes aren't necessary for that.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's possible, and I'm saying it does indeed lend itself better to a console port, whatever the intention.

It has 1 button because they moved away from the pot system, because its a boring mechanic that didnt actually add anything. Pots are a way to compensate for a poorly implemented resource/health system, Blizzards solution was to make their system good enough to not need it. Poe moving to make pots a fundamental mechanic isnt an improvement if the potion system is a bad system for the arpg genre.

I want to know where you get off saying that pots are a bad system for ARPGs before we get anywhere else on that.

You said the inventory system was fixed to make life easier on consoles, then i said it was fixed because it was a bad system (if you think the old item scaling system was a good one then we'll just smile and nod at eachother) And the reason itd be worse on console is a giant blocky gui system like this one are incredibly tedious to navigate with a gamepad. Its not impossible by any means, its just worse.

I said the fact that it was changed in this way makes it more approachable by a gamepad. I said it can mean that Blizzard made those changes for that reason. I didn't say that that's necessarily the reason, I can certainly think of at least one other big one.

See, you said it fixed a broken system. I want to hear an explanation instead of "just mah opinion".

What's worse than what on consoles? Because if you mean the old inventory UI compared to the new one, I concur.

D3s system does lend itself to consoles, but saying blizzard sacrificed game mechanics because they secretly always planned on making a console version is bullshit. And saying it was obvious from the start is even smellier bullshit.

The game is much console friendlier than a certain predecessor it should, ideally, build on. The devs were blowing their wads about the console port since before the game even released. What I said was, seeing all these sly "well, maybe we're going to make a console port" every few months coupled with the fact that the game did indeed turn out to be really console friendly made it obvious that the game's going to see a console version. You have to seriously have some sort of issues connecting dots not to see that.

Now as for how much of the simplification there is with the goal of a console in mind, I don't know. But that's only because I think with this game they were aiming at the lowest possible common denominator.

and im just not going defend the critically acclaimed starcraft 2 campaign, if you didnt like it, thats your burden

Defend it from what, the fact that barely enough relevant plot points happen to cover a single campaign in either War3 or the original Starcraft?

Aeshi:

BigTuk:
Going for the consoles. A very cheap grab by Blizzard They're getting desperate.

Kind of like how they were "desperate" back when they made a PS1 version of Diablo I?

See they know if left offline people would simple find ways to hack items into their inventory and ba, no need for RMAH.

You actually could hack items into your inventory in Diablo II (for both single-player and multiplayer) and that still had a thriving RMAH, heck it had multiple thriving RMAHs. If they hadn't added it, somebody else would have.

The concept of a RMAH is sort of sound, unfortunately Blizzard tried to make it work at the expense of everything else including gameplay.

 Pages 1 2 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