Blizzard Has a Version of Diablo 3 Running On Consoles

skade88 points out comments from Blizzard exec Rob Pardo, who says the company has internal builds of Diablo 3 running on consoles. It's been known for months that Blizzard has been working on something like this, but now we have the first indication of how far along the project is. Pardo said, "We're still kind of exploring it. We've got builds up and running on it. 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." According to lead designer Jay Wilson, we'll start seeing information on "the next big Diablo thing" next year, which probably refers to an expansion.

Comments

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

That is all.

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

Dawww look at the little Blizzard "fan" who wasn't around before World of Warcraft. (They've released a majority of their games on both PC and Console...)

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

Dawww look at the little Blizzard "fan" who wasn't around before World of Warcraft. (They've released a majority of their games on both PC and Console...)

I think you missed the point that D3 is a total joke in the first place...

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember diablo was for the playstation. It was cool because you could do same screen coop. It was nowhere near as cool as the pc version.

Re:lol

[durrr]

It's not diablo 3.
It's Isometric world of farmcraft and it really shows the generic cash addicted shit producers that blizzard have become.

Play path of exile if you want a continuation of the awsome that was diablo 2.

Re:lol

[Dins]

Play path of exile if you want a continuation of the awsome that was diablo 2.

Or Torchlight 2

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you missed the point that D3 is a total joke in the first place...

mod parent up!!!

Re:lol

[CanHasDIY]

Play path of exile if you want a continuation of the awsome that was diablo 2.

Or Torchlight 2

Nethack FTW!

Re:lol

[gorzek]

The Sacred series isn't bad, either.

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

NOob.

It's Zork. Beta version.

Re:lol

[toriver]

No, Adventure or Colossal Cave. On your father's old DEC PDP-8. Which you use for heating.

Re:lol

[lgw]

Nehack isn't far off, really. Diabo 1 started as a "rogue-like with graphics". Somewhere along the way they discovered that it was a lot of fun to make it realtime, not turn-by-turn, but it still had a lot of the same feel - especially when everything moved at exactly the same speed, so you'd see very familiar patterns when a room would aggro on you.

Diablo 2 divereged far from rogue/nethack, by the simple addition of variable monster speeds, and monster AI. I remember that was my favorite thing when D2 was new: there were monsters that had believeable AI that made them weaker (e.g., running in panic when you killed their neighbor) - I had never seen that before.

Re:lol

[bluescrn]

Might be better on consoles, not sure if Sony/MS will let them run the pay2win auction house?....

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

I played both. Torchlight 2 sucks big green donkey dicks.

Torchlight was actually pretty good. How the fuck did they make the sequel suck so badly?

D3 was better, but pretty nasty and disappointing.

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not diablo 3.
It's Isometric world of farmcraft and it really shows the generic cash addicted shit producers that blizzard have become.

Play path of exile if you want a continuation of the awsome that was diablo 2.

I'm not sure why everyone believes diablo 3 must be a carbon copy of diablo 2. If you want to play diablo 2, play diablo 2. But the bitching about how bad diablo 3 is is getting really, really old.

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry... I just don't /get/ the torchlight fandom. At all. I've played it, beat it.

The story has nothing on D2. The skills are lacking. The multiplayer... it's peer-to-peer like it's 1997 again.

Single player wasn't very engaging -- the story line had nothing on diablo. Even the narrative felt tired.

Nothing about it felt more heroic than a traditional boring old dungeon crawl.

Maybe I'm being a bit fuzzy...but torchlight ... just didn't have the same narrative engagement any of the diablos did.

It was somehow dull and boring going through their dungeons.

Re:lol

[elfprince13]

Probably didn't take that much work either, since most of the hard stuff is being done server-side with D3.

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure why everyone believes diablo 3 must be a carbon copy of diablo 2.

We wanted continuation of the Diablo series, instead we got World of Warcraft shoe-horned into the Diablo franchise.

...the bitching about how bad diablo 3 is is getting really, really old.

Not anymore than the Blizzard Entertainment scrotum slurping apologists like yourself.

Re:lol

[hobarrera]

Starcraft? Diablo II? Only for PC, AFAIK.
WarCraft II was available for some consoles. And it sucked enormously!

Re:lol

[mister_playboy]

My first Starcraft experience was on the N64.

You can form 18 unit groups in that version! :D

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, can't you. My Univac is so loud. What have you said, son?

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

*hear

Re:lol

[daddy32]

most of the hard stuff is being done server-side with D3.

In my opinion, that stuff would be easier to port than graphics, controls, etc.

Re:lol

[daddy32]

(e.g., running in panic when you killed their neighbor) - I had never seen that before.

That was already present in Diablo 1, although limited to certain monsters. Fallen?

Re:lol

[dywolf]

you know that "blizzard" encompasses multiple studios with multiple dev teams, yes?
you know that companies are in business to make money, right? That they don't exist just to give you stuff?

Diablo 3 is a decent game, and continues the story well. It only really has two big problems: no shipping pvp, and replayability. (if you say story, you can frag yourself; people bitched about D2's story too...how quickly people forget what they hated and label it "classic" down the road...soon the same will happen to D3)

Myself, I never got into D2's pvp, i just enjoyed the dungeon crawling. which takes us to Replayability. What it really really fundamentally lacks (since pvp is "coming") is the replayability that we expected and are used to. Chiefly because only some of the levels are randomly generated as they were in the previous games, leading to much quicker boredom/burnout. Some hate the RMAH, but the RMAH was to be expected; it's a way to moneytize a game without a subscription cost. And nothing is stopping you frm selling stuff on there.

Re:lol

[CronoCloud]

Yep, it was Fallen and similar creatures....at least in the PSone version.

Re:lol

[hobarrera]

I'd mod this informative if I hadn't already commented as GP. :)

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

My first Starcraft experience was on the N64.

You can form 18 unit groups in that version! :D

You could also play against Saddam Houssein. Ya rly.

https://www.google.com/search?q=saddam+starcraft

Re:lol

[djnforce9]

"Titan Quest - Immortal Throne" also feels more like a true spiritual successor to "Diablo II" as well. No "online only" requirement in single player, auction house, RIDICULOUS difficulty curve, or other needless mechanic that degrades the overall experience. I will have to check out "Path of Exile" sometime as well. I stopped playing Diablo III once I got to the "hell" difficulty and never went back again.

Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[kc67]

The game is lacking core functionality that it was suppose to have at launch, or shortly thereafter, such as PvP. They are working on porting this to consoles instead of adding features they promised players? I guess they are trying to milk this cow dry before it dies. It is really a shame, Diablo II was one of my favorite games of all time. Diablo 3 is embarrassing.

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

PVP and other "core" features will be in the first major planned expansion. The next expansion will have new maps from previous Diablo games to fight on, and an all new PVP mode!

Wait, this is Blizzard? I thought it was EA....

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be an idiot. The people porting it to console likely don't even possess the same skillset as the people working on PvP (one is low level hardware programming and optimization and control design, the other is level design, game design, and scripting). Also, PvP in Diablo games was always tacked on and terrible. At best it just enabled griefing for 14-year-old assholes.

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[jxander]

Adding core functionality costs money.

Porting to console generates money.

Given the current state of diablo, it's not terribly surprising which they opted for. If you do ever get that core functionality, expect it to be bundled in the first payed Expansion Pack. Hell, it might be the entire XPac. PvP now on sale for $50... you can pay with your Real-Money AH proceeds, from which we already pilfered 15%. Also expect the XPac to include items 1% better than everything currently in existence, just to start the farming all over again.

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[kc67]

Porting to console costs money too. Adding core functionality costs money but would also generate revenue if the features they added are the features players quit the game over. (PvP, end-game, etc) I do see where you are coming from. Opening the RMAH to the console market is going to generate a lot of $$$$

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

The did the same thing with SC2. Only now are some of the features promised at launch showing up.

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how PvP could work.
A lvl 60 character has around 50-60k hitpoints (roughly).

I imagine my Barb...boosted to the brim by gear and several war crier... *hit*....you are dead....*hit* you are dead again.
I mean come on. 300-500k damage on critical hit is not that difficult.

Or even better : the demon hunter....I sense an enemy....2 miles far off....*zing* you are dead....of he spawned again....only 1 mile far off...*zing* dead again.

Seriously. I have no idea how PvP could work in D3

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[Tridus]

Activision, EA, same thing really.

Call of Diablo will be the next expansion.

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they'll let you pay a dollar to auto-win?

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are working on porting this to consoles instead of adding features they promised players?

Protip: A corporation typically comprises more than one person, and can therefore do more than one thing at a time.

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[matrim99]

Seriously. I have no idea how PvP could work in D3

PvP damage scaling.

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[LordLucless]

The people porting it to console likely don't even possess the same skillset as the people working on PvP

So? If they weren't working on porting to consoles, they could have hired more PvP-oriented devs and less console-oriented ones. If there were no opportunity costs in porting, every game would be released for every platform.

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hiring more PvP-oriented devs may not help anyway.

Brooks's Law

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[Psicopatico]

Lack of PvP is not a deficency.
It keeps the screaming whiney kiddos affected by the "I have a bigger e-peen than you, faggot" syndrome away, directly rerouting them to other games.
Heck, the more I think about it the more I appreciate it.

Other than that yes, game has flaws. Even important ones.
And I don't think porting to consoles will solve them.

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[kc67]

When a game publisher promises something and does not deliver, that is a deficency. You don't like PvP? Don't participate.

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[The Moof]

*hit*....you are dead....*hit* you are dead again.

Remember, this is how Blizzard perceives difficulty. It'll be like playing unpatched Inferno all over again!

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lack of PvP is not a deficency.
It keeps the screaming whiney kiddos affected by the "I have a bigger e-peen than you, faggot" syndrome away, directly rerouting them to other games.
Heck, the more I think about it the more I appreciate it.

Indeed. PvP is usually a bigger deficiency than the lack of it, because it's almost always implemented in a completely broken way - flavors of the month, overpowered classes, skills, weapons, et cetera. It gets even worse in MMO/RPG-type games, because the very nature of PvP means it affects PvE and vice versa. You cannot balance combat between players and combat between NPCs against each other. It does not work; it has never worked; it never will work.

'sides, most 'l33t' PvPers are stone cold bitches who would leave little puddles all over the floor if ever they rolled on a game with permanent death. /epeen

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[viperidaenz]

You haven't thought about your viewpoint from a financial perspective much have you? They won't be working with a fixed amount of cash. The console porting is an investment into gathering more revenue from console sales. The money to hire console porters comes from that investment return (- risk, - profit). The increased revenue from adding more features, like PVP, increases even more if they can sell more copies - like to console gamers as well. It's plausible that the development of a console port gets them more money to spend on other game features, not less.

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[sheetsda]

You don't like PvP? Don't participate.

In past Diablo games is that that choice was not left up to you, it was left up to the other players in the same game as you. I once heard someone lament there should be a force PvE option similar to the force PvP button because "if the griefers can force me to play their game I should be able to force them to play mine."

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[s73v3r]

Adding core functionality costs money but would also generate revenue if the features they added are the features players quit the game over.

How? Those people already bought the game. Perhaps if those people were also buying things on the Auction House, but I would imagine anyone who cares that much about Diablo PvP wouldn't be that type.

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[geekoid]

Yes, it's a Diablo deficiency.

The fact that you don't know how to filter users is your deficiency.

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[LordLucless]

Brooke's law speaks to the futility of jamming people onto a project late in the game. It has no applicability at all when it comes for hiring people at the start of a project.

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[LordLucless]

You haven't thought about your viewpoint from a financial perspective much have you?

Well, no, because I wasn't responding to a financial question. The GP was saying that spending time one consoles had no opportunity cost, when it came to developing PvP. That's false.

Whether it's overall a financial win for the company, or whether - over the longterm - both features can be developed more efficiently by doing both is irrelevant to the GPs point and my argument. Assuming limited resources, any feature developed comes at the expense of other features - even if they require different skills.

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[viperidaenz]

But resources are limited by the potential for profit. The higher that potential, the more money that can be invested. There is obviously a limit but this is in the context of a > $10 billion dollar company.

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[LordLucless]

Which only goes to reinforce my point - there is a relationship between investments in feature A and feature B. Whether it's positive like you suggest (feature A produces enough money to then produce feature B) or negative like I suggest (cost of feature A precludes timely completion of feature B), the two are not completely distinct like the GP suggested. Also note that it's possible that we're both correct - feature A produces money used to create feature B, but feature B's release was still delayed by the focus on A.

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[mister_playboy]

Pendant: Most corporations in the US actually only have one employee.

*The more you know*

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[dywolf]

3 words: multiple dev teams.

its not like they focus everyone on only one task.
one group of people can work on ports (in fact, probably one group per targeted console).
one group can work on pvp.

Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

griefing for 14-year-old assholes.

Pretty much sums up all online gaming.

First post, what about Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Where can I find the version for Linux ?
Video

Any hope to get it on Desura ?

Re:First post, what about Linux

[crazyjj]

It will be in your stocking right next to a copy of Half-Life 2, Episode 3.

Re:First post, what about Linux

[JonJ]

Steam is already on its way to Linux, just the stubborn morons at Blizzard not wanting to port.

Re:First post, what about Linux

[geekoid]

Because it would cost more to port then the number of people who would be added becasue they use linux.

They aren't stubborn morons. Calling people stubborn morons becasue linux isn't in their business interests is being a stubborn moron.

Re:First post, what about Linux

[LordLimecat]

Getting steam on linux doesnt get the games to magically work on linux. "Just porting" might be kind of a big expense for the return theyre likely to get.

Re:First post, what about Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

You are obviously not a programmer. There is nothing that makes Linux or any modern OS "hard" to port to. Stubbornness characterizes it exactly. If they wanted to, it would have happened. The best example of Blizzard's anti-linux stance is the World of Warcraft linux client. It must have not cost very much, nor been very hard, because it did exist, and they were just left with shopping for a distributor.

Re:First post, what about Linux

[hobarrera]

I don't know about the lateste couple of games, but older games were C, C++ and OpenGL, o there wouldn't be much issue porting them to linux. Heck, they've even made OS X ports for some of them, so porting to *nix shouldn't be too much work.

MONEY

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of money! Loads of money!

Re:MONEY

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah at this point I'd rather they didn't get the kind of money having the RMAH on consoles is going to bring them. They were good for a [i]long[/i] time, but it's obvious that is now over as they demonstrate time and again they WILL cater to the lowest common denominator with all their products resulting in bland and generic crap. It doesn't matter how well polished it is, crap is still crap.

Re:MONEY

[Anonymous Coward]

Money Money Money!

Killing floor. Fuck yeah.

The game still has its flaws

[thmsdrew]

I hope it's a rather small subset of their employees that are exploring this console thing. The game needs a lot of work to be even close to its full potential, and I would think their time would be much better spent working towards that.

Re:The game still has its flaws

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the limited use of toolbars? I'd say this was their plan all along.

Re:The game still has its flaws

[spire3661]

1000% spot on. The instant i saw the interface, i knew it was console bound.

Re:The game still has its flaws

[ildon]

Have you played since 1.06? All the work has basically been done. It's pretty awesome right now.

Re:The game still has its flaws

[the computer guy nex]

I'll also be a contrarian here. Diablo 3 has improved greatly since release. Problem is the current patch (1.06) is what should have been at launch.

Re:The game still has its flaws

[gorzek]

One wonders what Blizzard's excuse is for this. It's not like they're some fly-by-night studio that's under distributor deadlines to "get this out by Christmas or you're all fired." They have the time and the money for development to "take as long as it takes." Instead, they're playing the exact same "release now, patch later" game everyone else does.

Re:The game still has its flaws

[Cinder6]

You have me tempted to fire it up again...but it's hard to muster the interest at this point. It's not that I disliked the game (in fact, I loved it at first), it's that it just got very boring very quickly, to the point where I had almost no energy to do anything after beating normal mode.

Re:The game still has its flaws

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh?

'cause why exactly?...

Yes, the loot has improved. Anything else?
The infernal machine is annoying. Key drop rate is abysmal. 100 runs, one key. And you need 9 of them.... (3x3)
Seriously. The infernal machine is not worth it.
You need to make hundreds of runs for the nine keys + one plan, buy a ring plan for 2 million gold, kill three times 2 uber-boss monsters at the same time.

And for what? One shitty ring that can't be sold with stats that are laughable, terrible, to be polite?
SERIOUSLY?????

I would have expected, no, demanded spectacular uber-gear not available otherwise with new effect.
Instead you are receiving a ring that is outclassed by rings you can buy cheaper on the AH.

Blizzard must be rolling on floor laughing that people are doing this shit.
Yes, I still play D3...but not for the infernal machine.

Anything else I missed in 1.06??

Re:The game still has its flaws

[Tridus]

Most likely they actually thought it was a good game. Internal feedback and a beta test aren't the same thing as what happens when millions of people hit it release and get pissed off. I mean it's not like the game was lacking in terms of polish, it's just that what they had wasn't all that fun.

Time doesn't always give you a better product, just look at Duke Nukem Forever.

Re:The game still has its flaws

[need4mospd]

It's not "awesome" until I can play it offline.

Re:The game still has its flaws

[hand_of_lixue]

110% agreed. Sadly, it's pretty obvious that the game before patch was basically meant to milk people on the Auction House.

The game-as-shipped had massive "stealth nerfs" to everything that wasn't raw damage/defense at higher difficulties (this was later documented in their online manual, but the in-game tooltips still falsely displayed the same values regardless of difficulty). In other words, the only way to succeed was to have the best gear... which unlike play skill, could be purchased on the Auction House!

Of course, the end-game has always been a grind for better gear, but it feels like they really kicked it up a notch in Diablo III, at the detriment of the "casual" gamers who just wanted to beat the game without spending money.

I love the game ever since Patch 1.0.5 addressed the stealth nerfs, but at this point Guild Wars 2 has stolen me away and I've pretty much forgotten it. It was a good 40 hours of having a blast at lower difficulties, though, so I can't say it wasn't money well spent...

Re:The game still has its flaws

[Dishevel]

Do not speak of DNF again.

Re:The game still has its flaws

[afidel]

Meh, anybody who expected a bugfree, perfectly balanced game at launch never played a Diablo game, Diablo 1, Diablo Hellfire, Diablo 2, and Diablo 2 LOD were all bugridden and unbalanced at release and for the first few patches. Heck the first three never really achieved any sense of balance and LOD only kindof got there.

Re:The game still has its flaws

[lgw]

Hey, I really liked DNF! I don't know here all the had comes from: it was a simple corridor shooter with 3-breated aliens. What else did you expect? Admittedly, it missed its chance to be the first "and you drive monster trucks" game, but hey, monster trucks.

Re:The game still has its flaws

[GiganticLyingMouth]

Agreed. Back at launch they were mentioning how surprised they were at the effect the auction house had. Internally they had something like a few dozen people playing it, so the auction house had a very limited pool of items, and as a result was fairly insignificant. Fast forward to a week after launch and they were completely blindsided at the massive effect the auction house had on itemization. On the one hand I feel like they should have seen it coming, but on the other hand, complex, dynamic systems aren't easy to predict.

Re:The game still has its flaws

[johnlcallaway]

I've run two characters are far as Inferno with no farming, and gotten three more through Normal. (I have one of each type.) I have never been to the Auction house, and get through the game on things I buy, build, or find. Didn't even get to level 60 on the two characters until into Act 4 at Hell level. It takes me this long is I'm married and have a life, and can't spend 24 hours a day playing it. Plus I'm a bit of a dungeon crawler, seeking out every last monster to slay and every cave and cellar to explore. I do share items between my own players though.

People that need to farm or buy things at the auction house in order to advance in the game just aren't very good the game itself .. that's all. That's why they have to 'game' it.

Re:The game still has its flaws

[geekoid]

Don't confuse bad interface design with some grand plan.

Re:The game still has its flaws

[geekoid]

That's becasue the beta system is broken. Not just at Blizzard but in general.

Now it's full of fanbois who wont say anything bad becasue, gosh THEIR thing they are a fan of is always perfect. Until it's patched, then its even more perfecter~

I know many beta tester who either don't post issues they find, or post the issue but still rate the game high.

AS I, and many others, predicted. Alpha has become beta, beta has become a circle jerk, and the 'gold' is beta version 2. Release is the second patch.

Re:The game still has its flaws

[geekoid]

They should have seen it coming, becasue many people told them it would happen. No hind site here, they were specifically told about these issue.

I gave blizzard a lot of cred, and they chewed it all away with Star Craft II and Diablo 3.

They had been one of the few studios I would buy product from immediately and pay full first release price.

Re:The game still has its flaws

[geminidomino]

I love the game ever since Patch 1.0.5 addressed the stealth nerfs, but at this point Guild Wars 2 has stolen me away and I've pretty much forgotten it. It was a good 40 hours of having a blast at lower difficulties, though, so I can't say it wasn't money well spent...

Have you only just gotten into Guild Wars 2 or something? I ask genuinely, because ANet really, really appears to be trying to do the exact same thing. There's some sort of divergent development disorder going on, where the content team makes changes to make the game more grindy (which is fine with me, I actually like grind), while the "balance" team makes constant nerfs, stealth and overt, to anything that people are grinding in the pursuit of the first set!

It might be cynical to believe that they're doing it to push the cash->gem->gold conversions, but I can't, for the life of me, imagine why else they'd be constantly locked in that sort of self-defeating loop.

Re:The game still has its flaws

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem was that it's too short really. Played it through in a couple of days - done!

Of course you can keep replaying it with more/harder mobs, but it's the same game over and over again, just with randomised maps.

I think I got value for money - enjoyed it for what it was, but I can't see how people are still playing it now.

Re:The game still has its flaws

[MacBurn11]

The infernal machine is annoying. Key drop rate is abysmal. 100 runs, one key. And you need 9 of them.... (3x3) Seriously. The infernal machine is not worth it. You need to make hundreds of runs for the nine keys + one plan, buy a ring plan for 2 million gold, kill three times 2 uber-boss monsters at the same time.p>

You do realise that the drop chance depends on the monster level? At level 5 the chance for the key to drop is 50%. Without setting a monster level, the chance is only 5%, so of course that will take ages unless you are blessed by the rng gods....

And for what? One shitty ring that can't be sold with stats that are laughable, terrible, to be polite?

The important stat of that ring is the 35% experience bonus, which you dont get on any other ring (except one, but it's low level with terrible stats). So with the hellfire ring, you will gain paragon levels much quicker. Plus there really is a chance that it rolls decent stats apart form the exp. boost (crit chance/dmg, attack speed, resist all, etc.).

The infernal machine is just something to do besides grinding the 4 acts. You play through the game several times, kill a key warden here and there, and once you have enough keys you kill the uber bosses. It just adds a little bit of variety.

Re:The game still has its flaws

[dkf]

Don't confuse bad interface design with some grand plan.

Why not? That's what Blizzard seem to be doing...

Re:The game still has its flaws

[dywolf]

Because Diablo 2 was perfect in all its glory immediately upon release and they didnt release bug fix and balance patches years after release....

Re:The game still has its flaws

[Anonymous Coward]

Just got it, I've reached level 35. Crafting feels like a grind, but still a vastly more enjoyable one than crafting in WOW. The rest of the game hasn't felt the slightest bit like grinding, although I can see how the Daily Achievements could evoke that in others.

Re:The game still has its flaws

[Anonymous Coward]

My whole point was that the subsequent patches changed it so that this is entirely possible. When the game was first released, patch 1.0.0, Inferno was a pain unless you were entirely focused on damage+defense, as opposed to crowd control, mobility, or healing. I've played Inferno now, and I played it then, and it's a world of difference. Some patches helped address it much earlier on, but 1.0.5 is when they really started to care about making multiple builds viable in Inferno.

Was this unexpected?

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't as if there's any technical or business hurdle that prevents a console version of D3 being made.

End goal:

[amaupin]

Bring the Real Money Auction House to a million new potential customers.

Re:End goal:

[Anonymous Coward]

And then piss off those millions until they stop playing the game, just like it already has. Why couldn't they go back to the days of Diablo II where they would sponsor and/or turn a blind eye to item selling websites, 99% of which coincidentally had the same layout and items that refreshed at the same time.

Re:End goal:

[TexVex]

In my own experience with Diablo III, in the thirty-or-so hours I gave it, I never once got a loot drop that I thought was excellent. I bought most of my equipment on the gold auction house -- no real money involved -- and it allowed me to pretty easily stay ahead of the curve. At the same time, I didn't sell anything that way; it was just easier to sell every half-decent piece of loot to the shop.

Maybe the worst decision they made was to make the auction available to just anyone. It totally bypasses the loot cycle for the first two difficulty levels of the game. The player just buys good loot for game gold, blows through every level easily, and never experiences the excitement of a rare loot drop. "Oh, a yellow item? Yeah, I just bought one better than that for 500 gold."

If you could only access the auction once you reached Hell level, maybe the first hours of gameplay would be a, um, hell of a lot more fun.

Re:End goal:

[Anonymous Coward]

In my own experience with Diablo III, in the thirty-or-so hours I gave it, I never once got a loot drop that I thought was excellent. I bought most of my equipment on the gold auction house -- no real money involved -- and it allowed me to pretty easily stay ahead of the curve. At the same time, I didn't sell anything that way; it was just easier to sell every half-decent piece of loot to the shop.

Maybe the worst decision they made was to make the auction available to just anyone. It totally bypasses the loot cycle for the first two difficulty levels of the game. The player just buys good loot for game gold, blows through every level easily, and never experiences the excitement of a rare loot drop. "Oh, a yellow item? Yeah, I just bought one better than that for 500 gold."

If you could only access the auction once you reached Hell level, maybe the first hours of gameplay would be a, um, hell of a lot more fun.

Excellent criticism. I gave the game 200+ hours and also never found a truly good loot drop, i.e. an item I would use for my character. After a while it just becomes obvious the whole point of Diablo3 is to go to the real money auction house and pay Activision/Blizzard more money to have fun.

Nothing surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Diablo 1 worked perfectly fine on the PS1 back then, I don't see why Diablo 3 wouldn't work on today's consoles. Not to mention the fact that they completely dumbed down the way Diablo worked, compared to Diablo 2, which is even more ideal for console users.

Not unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

Blizzard has released a _lot_ of their games for PC. For example: Blackthorne (SNES, Sega MegaDrive/Genesis, maybe TurboGrafix-16(?)), Rock and Roll Racing (SNES, Sega Genesis/MegaDrive), Warcraft II + Beyond the Dark Portal (Playstation), Starcraft (Nintendo 64), The Lost Vikings (SNES, Gameboy Advance, maybe sega I don't honestly remember).

Good to see they're continuing their tradition.

D3

[Muramas95]

Blizzard, how come you keep failing on the simple things that should be common sense...Fix your game before trying to port it otherwise you will just piss off more people.

Re:D3

[gorzek]

It's only going to piss off people whose money Blizzard already got.

D3 bad

[Anonymous Coward]

D3 was an embarrassment. Blizzard should be ashamed of themselves.

Re:D3 bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey now, don't be hatin' on Blizzard...after all, they provide employment opportunities for all those nice phisher-folk who constantly send me e-mails telling me how horribly naughty I've been for attempting to sell my (non-existent) D3 account.

One step ahead of them

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got a version of Diablo 3 running down my intestines

Will not buy

[Sperbels]

Got the game for PC the first week. I just wanted to play it on my machine but they made me create an account on their website. Then I tried to play the game...but then I had to login and there was a problem with their login service. Then I was able to login, they made me change my password to something with upper and lower case, and numbers. Now that I couldn't remember my password and had it written down somewhere inconvenient I could finally play...which I did for a whole weekend. Then I stopped playing for a couple of months and then tried to login again but couldn't remember my password and lost the paper I had it written on. So I recovered my password by email. Then tried to login. It said there was suspicious activity on my account, they temporary disabled my account, and I should contact customer support. FUCK!!!!! Next step....uninstall Diablo 3. Blizzard. Your take on DRM is fucking annoying. I will not ever ever be buying a game from you again.

Re:Will not buy

[Anonymous Coward]

So, your problem with their DRM is that you can't remember a reasonably secure password?

Damn, that same DRM is crippling gmail too!

Re:Will not buy

[hand_of_lixue]

Given that their password system is case insensitive that seems rather unlikely... they also haven't had major issues with their login servers since release.

If you paid any attention, the need for a Battle.Net account and the DRM was pretty obvious - they didn't exactly hide it, and there was a lot of outcry over it.

Re:Will not buy

[Kittenman]

So, your problem with their DRM is that you can't remember a reasonably secure password?

Damn, that same DRM is crippling gmail too!

My bank has the same DRM! And, good god, so does Amazon! And .. and ...

Re:Will not buy

[Anonymous Coward]

You bought a game without knowing that it required online login and registration DESPITE all the handwaving about that on /. and gamer websites.
You used a weak password and they forced you to use a stronger one.
You forgot the new password.
You recovered your password by email. Something looked suspicious and you were required to contact customer support.
You instead deleted the game.

Sounds like you're their ideal customer. One with the cash to spend on a AAA title, with features you don't like, that you didn't bother to research. Even more, you hardly played so didn't consume any of their server resources. And now you're uninstalling so you won't consume their resources.

Perfect customer.

Re:Will not buy

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I was able to login, they made me change my password to something with upper and lower case, and numbers.

Odd, considering Blizzard's passwords are case-insensitive.

Re:Will not buy

[Sperbels]

My problem is that it is a single player game that requires you to login, and it has enforces a level of password complexity that requires me to use a non-memorized password (for what reason? So somebody can't play it on my machine?), and their implementation is unreliable and locked me out for god knows what reason. They've made it such in annoying user experience that I'd rather not play. I don't have this much trouble with the MMOs I play, why should be such an ordeal for a single player game?

Re:Will not buy

[Sperbels]

I knew it required a battle.net login. I just didn't think it would be such a hassle to login. Am I crazy to think that if I install a single player game on my secured computer, that I should be able to play it without having to worry about getting locked out inputting the wrong password three times? Our network at works locks your login at 3 attempts. Why would battle.net have the same level of security? It's pointless.

Re:Will not buy

[Sperbels]

And why don't we do this... all of the applications you have installed on your box should require a unique password with letters and numbers, and they all phone home to gigabyte sized updates. You can login to windows, wait for the update. Then you can login to your browser...wait for the update. Then you can login in notepad...wait for the update. Login to Word, ...oh shit you screwed up the password 3 times...now it's disabled and you have to call microsoft and answer a bunch of security questions so you can edit some document for work.

Re:Will not buy

[Sperbels]

My bank has the same DRM! And, good god, so does Amazon! And .. and ...

...and I have all those important passwords unique and memorized. I don't want to have to memorize a totally new one for a game I play once in a blue moon.

Re:Will not buy

[s73v3r]

all of the applications you have installed on your box should require a unique password

Who said it had to be unique? Most of us have a junk password that we use for things we don't really care about.

Re:Will not buy

[Sperbels]

As do I. I have quite a few. But they didn't meet battle.net's password complexity requirement.

Re:Will not buy

[geekoid]

maybe you should become familiar with the windows update process before talking about it?

Re:Will not buy

[Sperbels]

I am familiar with the windows update process. Are you familiar with hyperbole? I'm trying to explain how ridiculous it would be if all of your Windows apps worked like Diablo 3.

Re:Will not buy

[mr_gorkajuice]

I'm pretty sure Battle.net's password complexity requirement is "8 characters, combining letters and numbers". I know any harsher demands would invalidate my battle.net password.

But how will this even work on Live?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't Microsoft specifically disallow certain networking uses such as this?
I've heard so many complaints from devs over the years about the horrible restrictions on Live functionality that I am not even sure any more.

As for why they are doing this, it is obvious they just more money.
Why they are even bothering to port their terrible DRM system - that nobody even wasted that much time on reverse-engineering after everyone agreed the game was worthless - is beyond me.
They'd likely get more than triple the sales regardless. Piracy on consoles is still stupidly low in comparison to other generations. (well, except Wii)
Why waste time adding depth to the PC version when you can just rip off the poor console lemmings too?

Diablo as a series is dead now. It was only a matter of time till they got to it. Shame some people on consoles will still get it before they find out about the huge disdain for the game.

Re:But how will this even work on Live?

[Anonymous Coward]

>

As for why they are doing this, it is obvious they just more money.
Why they are even bothering to port their terrible DRM system - that nobody even wasted that much time on reverse-engineering after everyone agreed the game was worthless - is beyond me.

That's probably the problem right there. If no one bothered cracking the DRM because no one wanted the game the producer probably thinks they've found the most successful DRM system ever and want to use it for everything.

Re:But how will this even work on Live?

[Anonymous Coward]

So "everyone" agrees the game is worthless, and yet they'll still get big sales from a console port? I do look forward to seeing what kind of semantic acrobatics you'll perform in your sad attempt at reconciling that contradiction. I'm guessing you'll go with some variant of "hurrr, console gamers iz dum sheeples" (since you already did once).

Company name is Activision Blizzard Inc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which means Activision's money whoring ways would trickle down to Blizzard sooner or later. Kotick's treatment of games as products and nothing more ensured the eventual quality erosion of Blizzard's games. I'm pretty sure that the devs get bonuses based on revenue and sales, so they are probably pitching right in to wring every last nickle out of their customers. Sad to see another highly revered game company throwing away quality for $, too bad the money pile is obscuring the cliff on the other side. From talking to friends who play Blizzard's recent games, maybe its not so bad if they fall off the cliff after all...

Yay?

[Tridus]

So at some point in the future console users might get to share in the joy that is the most disappointing release of 2012. And the RMAH scam, but only after paying Microsoft for an Xbox Live subscription for the privilege, of course.

Honestly, Diablo 3 just wasn't that good of a game. It'd have made a lot more sense either without the AH at all, or without the $60 pricetag and with the AH as the monetization tool.

Please

[Anonymous Coward]

For the love of gaming, Please stop developing on consoles.

Re:Please

[Anonymous Coward]

PC is dead. Deal with it.

Re:Please

[Anonymous Coward]

For the love of gaming, Please stop developing on consoles.

PC is dead. Deal with it.

The antidote to stupidity is not more stupidity.

Was fun for a minute...

[JakeBurn]

I really liked this game when it first came out. Didn't have a ton of time to play but made it to Act 3 Inferno right as they decided I should be punished. Nothing like logging in one day to find repair bills were so high that you couldn't afford to repair. Sell everything you have and still have broken pieces of armor. Brilliant idea making a player decide whether they'd rather make another character in order to farm the money needed to repair your favorite character or just uninstall. Haven't played since.

Re:Was fun for a minute...

[duk242]

You probably shouldn't have been in Act 3 inferno if you were dying so much that you can't afford repairs. I usually finish an Act 3 inferno run with 1-3 deaths (if I get a bad elite pack combo).

Re:Was fun for a minute...

[JakeBurn]

Guess I wasn't very clear before. I wasn't having trouble in Act 3 until I logged out one day needing repairs and had 10k on my guy after making some gems. A week later I come back and the normal 10-15k repair bill was over 50k. Sure I could have begged for the money. Or made another character and farmed the gold. I chose the spend my time playing something route.

They're used to paying $60 for no replay value

[oic0]

Should work well in a market where $60 for a game that's only fun for maybe 20 hours is the accepted norm.

Re:They're used to paying $60 for no replay value

[Anonymous Coward]

To Blizzard's credit I've gotten about $1000 worth of entertainment out of Starcraft 2 for a once off $50.
Diablo 3, I believe they tried, and most of their decisions were made out of good intentions rather than the 100% malice a lot of people believe.
Even so, still a really boring game and normal difficulty is a waste of time so you have 6 boring hours before it even remotely becomes a game.

Re:They're used to paying $60 for no replay value

[loufoque]

20 hours? That's long for a modern console game.

Re:They're used to paying $60 for no replay value

[CronoCloud]

20 hours is what I call "a good short" 40 hours is more the average.....some games can easily hit hundreds, but they tend to be RPG's. Time is finite, so for adult gamers with jobs...shorter is better if they want to play more than one game.

Re:They're used to paying $60 for no replay value

[drsquare]

Console games have years of gameplay becasue they're designed primarily to be fun rather than a timesink/content consumption mechanism like a PC game. Consider how much gameplay people got out of Mario or Sonic, compared to a PC game where you just watch cut-scenes for hour after hour until you get bored and uninstall.

It's coming

[Anonymous Coward]

There was always speculation that Blizzard planned this from the get go, and it shows through the inherent design decisions made. The extremely limited and streamlined skill system (tailored almost perfectly for a buttoned controller), the complete focus on having 4 players (controllers) centred on the action, the auto way pointing and lack of free roaming, the console style matchmaking system, and don't forget that practically every console user has their credit card details attached to their consoles these fays so streamlining the RMAH system would be a breeze.

It's just a shame that the game itself is so shallow and dull, and that the creators behind it are extremely arrogant and pig-headed, otherwise it could have been something special. But honestly, no amount of patching can save Diablo 3 now (still no PVP yet! Bet you'll hear about it for the expan$ion though), and shit even an expansion at this point would have to completely overhaul the underlying gameplay mechanics which we know Wilson and the crew will refuse outright.

That's big news!

[argStyopa]

I heard that both people still playing Diablo 3 are *thrilled*.

on consoles? Does that mean text mode diablo?

[Anonymous Coward]

The TF2 for Linux is good, but text mode diablo would be too intensive.

WHERE IS MY PVP???

[SoVi3t]

Seriously, this entire game has been a cluster fuck of stupidity. A year later almost and we're still essentially beta testing it and reminding blizzard "you fucked up."

Great, D3 for consoles.

[cpricejones]

So this gives console gamers the chance to eagerly look forward to being extremely disappointed ...

facepalm

[Anonymous Coward]

Just proves how wrong road they are taking. Still hunting the money instead the customer satisfaction. Anyone who buys this game is because marketing team managed to trick them.

Discount handbags,sunglasses sale

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, everybody, the good shoping place, the new season approaching, click in.
===== http://www.sowotrade.com =====
Discount Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35,
Air max shoes (TN LTD BW 90 180) $36,
Nike/shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35,
Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $36,
T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $20,
Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$35,
Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$16,
New era cap $12,
(NFL MLB NBA NHL) jerseys $25,
free shipping,
Accept credit card and (PAYPAL),
===== http://www.sowotrade.com =====

Discount handbags,sunglasses sale

[iueyuqru]

Hello, everybody, the good shoping place, the new season approaching, click in. ===== http://www.sowotrade.com/ ===== Discount Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35, Air max shoes (TN LTD BW 90 180) $36, Nike/shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35, Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $36, T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $20, Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$35, Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$16, New era cap $12, (NFL MLB NBA NHL) jerseys $25, free shipping, Accept credit card and (PAYPAL), ===== http://www.sowotrade.com/ =====

And?

[Anonymous Coward]

See comment subject.....

Diablo for the Unix console, excellent

[jw3]

When I read the title I was all like -- what? Diablo-branded rogue-like for the Unix text console? Excellent! I guess I'm too old.