The answer to the question of Blizzard taking Diablo III to a console is mired in a bit of a mess right now. CVG is reporting on an interview with Blizzard’s COO Paul Sams and The Guardian about a release on either the PS3 or the Xbox 360, and the answer is unclear.
When asked directly, Sams replied fairly shakily.
I don’t know yet. A lot of it depends on whether we think the gameplay experience will be the same on console, especially regarding the controls. Also I'd like to keep our audience together.
Sams then went on to comment on the give and take that developers face when porting a game onto a console.
When you are developing for multiple platforms you sometimes have to compromise. We aren't willing to compromise. We have relationships with all the console manufacturers. I know they would love to have us on their platforms, ideally on their own and not their competitor! But it's all about the game experience.
For quick reference on the whole matter, I got out my copy of
Baldur’s Gate: Dark Alliance and rapidly starting killing rats in a cellar. I can now personally confirm that
Diablo III’s action will translate to a console. For future review, I think I will try running across the city map in
GTA IV. I assume that hitting the “A” button that many times in succession is bound to give me an even better idea of the
Diablo III experience.
Doesn’t this just seem like Blizzard is trying to be inclusive for the sake of it? I can certainly understand how it would be troubling to port a game designed specifically for the mouse and keyboard, but many developers have succeeded in this regard. Furthermore, I find it laughable that Blizzard is probably going to be willing to take the time to make
Diablo III Macintosh compatible, but the idea of going to a console is just too silly.
Contest:
12:03 PM on 07.01.2008
| 
Methinkst someone is a console gamer.
/endrant
Until Blizzard decides to thaw out Starcraft:Ghost, console-only gamers can shiver in the cold while the rest of us go to Hell (in a good way).
Anyways, Ascaron seems to think that the gameplay will translate just fine to the consoles. I guess if Ascaron pulls off Sacred2 on the 360 I'll be plenty happy. Sacred1 did enough right for me to enjoy it more than Diablo2 so it aught to keep me good to go when it releases.
2) I'm more than happy to see a console port, more people enjoying Diablo 3 that way... but Blizzard wont do the port. Blizzard themselves is a PC only developer, and in the past, their ports have all been farmed out
Anyway, Diablo III would sell a bajillion copies on consoles, so I can't imagine Blizzard not pursuing it. I'm sure there are a number of design hurdles, but come on...this is Diablo, not Stacraft.
-- Posted from a Mac that runs WOW just fine.
But if you're talking about a dungeon crawl experience like Diablo (I'm sorry, but isn't it just Gauntlet with mad skills and specialized gear??), It makes alot of sense to me to just make a console port. Most systems have enough buttons for a nice set of core action skills.
Also worth considering. For some people, these consoles are pushing more pixels and textures than their home computers, which wasn't the case a few years back. Graphic processing on most consoles now are on par with the PC. So I think that's another part of the perceived clamor for console ports of everything.
At the end of the day, I just get mad when every few days some story comes out "OMG PC GAMING IS DEAD," but, when the premier PC gaming developer announces a major game, people complain that it doesn't get ported to console.
Screw that. Screw 360 and PS3. Stick with your guns Blizzard. Your fans are legion.
What a ridiculous thing to say. Its about translating mouse+keyboard action to a gamepad along with maintaining compatibility on different operating systems and hardware, in the case of consoles; in the case of the mac the only change is in the OS. Apples and oranges. Actually, to be totally accurate its apples vs oranges and apples. But I guess that's a less compelling saying.
Every play an RTS on a console? Doesn't translate so easily, does it? I had an N64 C&C, which was pretty cool but playing it was a totally different experience, because pointing and clicking was now a significant overhead.
Console games with pointers don't work, period*. Taking a game with a pointer and turning it into a game where action takes place relative to your character changes the game. I don't see how you could disagree with that.
*Wii-exceptions aside.
As simple as Diablo may appear... it's a mouse based game. How are you going to click on specific loot on the ground, manage your inventory, target ranged spells and attacks, etc. with an analog stick and still make it accurate and comfortable?
Blizzard has absolutely no motive to bother with a console port. The PC version will sell like hotcakes, just like Blizzard games always do, I'd imagine the console port would be lacking due to the mouse issue, so it wouldn't be recieved as well, and porting D3 to a console would have hte same reaction from their harcore PC fanboys (of which there are a fair ton) that you'd get from PS3 fanboys if Konami announced a 360 port of MGS4.
Being catered to specifically being cared for, is a nice feeling. Fans hate to lose that spotlight attention.
At the risk of stoking up the old "Console vs PC" embers I have to ask, has Capcom ever made a PC port of a game even worth playing?
Downside, it was hard to blast barrels from a distance with spells (I think it was impossable actually like your Fireball or your arrow just flew over them)
In any case, they have released Diablo on a console before.
Have you ever tried it? Its really two totally different things. Console controls are not precise. That's just their nature.
I mentioned that in one of my posts. Warcraft 2 and Starcraft were also ported to consoles. All three were failures.
http://www.destructoid.com/diablo-becomes-an-amazon-top-seller-93214.phtml#comment
you can tell that only looking at those sarcastic pc gaming comments.
Keep it simple, keep it PC.
Keeping the same games means keep appealing to the same audience, which means PC gaming is NOT expanding to new audiences ( outside of flash games ) which means its dying
Yeah, that's so much different from the consoles.
Highest selling Wii games (besides Wii Sports, which comes with the console, and Wii Play, which comes with a Wiimote):
Super Mario Galaxy
Mario Kart Wii
Smash Brothers Brawl
Mario Party 8
Wii Fit
Zelda
PS3:
Grand Theft Auto 4
Motorstorm
Call of Duty 4
Resistance
Assassin's Creed
Metal Gear Solid 4
Grand Turismo 5
360:
Halo 3
Call of Duty 4
Grand Theft Auto 4
Gears of War
Forza Motorsport 2
Assassins' Creed
Guitar Hero 3
Elder Scrolls 4
How many of these are sequels or rehashes of old products? How many also came out for the PC? The remainder: Motorstorm (a racing game..), Resistance (a mediocre shooter), and Forza Motorsport 2 (another racing game). Hardly a groundswell of successful innovation if you ask me....
Besides, ever hear of Europa Universalis or the other crazy-ass Paradox strategy games? Their shit makes Risk look like checkers!
Thanks for the buzz kill Buzz Killington.
What killias said. I'm not going to have anyone claiming that consoles are revolutionizing the gaming world.
</grinch>
I don't get the "couch vs desk" argument for consoles: I can have my big comfortable couch set in front of my big screen TV with a book on the arm rest to use the mouse and it works out just fine.
I see where they're coming from, and I'm hoping they work through them because it's not very likely that I will pick this up on the PC. PC Games end up having a much smaller half life as well as an insanely decreased chance of me even picking them up unless they're an MMO.
I don't think everyone needs a PC, but I also think it's a great alternative to a 360 or PS3 (especially for people into Strategy games). I don't think the PC market is incredibly vibrant right now, but it's still doing well. Digital distribution is moving a lot of copies, MMO's are making out like bandits, user created mods are continually breathing life into old games, etc. As a PC gamer with a pretty good PC rig (I can play Crysis on high settings), I have no reason to get a PS3 or 360. As a sidenote, I do have a Wii. I figured the Wii is so unique in terms of games, play styles, controls, etc. and cheap that it was worth it. In retrospect, I was correct.
Are you fucking kidding me? You're going to complain about THAT?
I don't particularly want this Diablo shit on my consoles, frankly. ;)
Blizzard makes over $120 million a month as a PC exclusive company. They're the most successful, profitable entertainment developer on Earth. Forget consoles- HOLLYWOOD wishes it had shit on Blizzard.
You and your opinions are retarded.
OR, if that doesn't convince you, in the last 10 years Blizzard has released only THREE FULL GAMES: Diablo 2, Warcraft 3, and World of Warcraft.
Of course, Starcraft was released just before 10 years ago, and there have been a number of expansion packs (Brood War, Lord of Destruction, Frozen Throne, The Burning Crusade). They also re-released Warcraft 2 B.net edition within the last decade. Still, though. Think about that! Nintendo releases a new game like every other week! Even if you count all these expansion packs and such, that's only NINE RELEASES IN TEN YEARS!! ALL ON THE PC!!
Keep also in mind that this is revenue. I'm sure Nintendo's costs are significantly higher than Blizzard's. There's a reason why the biggest video game publisher in the world (Activision Blizzard) decided to use Blizzard's name despite Blizz only providing like 1/100th of their total output....