
Diablo III did not do well in our reviews. But the fact that it’s coming to PS3 and PS4 is a pretty big deal, making Blizzard yet another company that de facto treats the PC as another console platform.
You’d think, of course, that being available as a PC exclusive for coming up on a year now, PC gamers would be satisfied.
You’d be wrong.
Kotaku excerpts a now sadly-deleted conspiracy theory from a Battle.Net forum member that Diablo III was, like, totally meant for consoles from the start, you guys. And it’s simultaneously funny and kind of sad, watching angry Diablo fans pile up to roar about how it’s not fair that, uh, er, PS3 owners will get to pay $60 to play a year old game using a control method it wasn’t designed for. We’ve included a few rebuttals.
Diablo 3 was setup to be a console game.
The reason only 4 players are allowed into a game is for 4 controllers.
Honestly, if this game actually has four-player local multiplayer, that would be a great thing. We rank it roughly as likely as Kate Upton asking any of the Gamma Squad crew out for burgers.
The reason the quests make you walk in a linear closed circuit as opposed to big open worlds, is to keep your buds next to you on the same screen.
Oh, yeah, because Diablo III presents such vivid graphical challenges. Come on, guy, it looks good but it doesn’t look THAT good.
The reason for no skill points or complicated number crunching? To make console players happy.
Yeah, console players hate number crunching, especially those Final Fantasy jocks. Notice that an ongoing theme here is that console players are stupid.
The reason you have 4-5 skills on your bar at once? Very easy to use an Xbox/Ps3 controller to use skills.
This actually we think he has a point. We’re skeptical that this was always the intent, but it does line up pretty well.
The reason no runes / complicated item mechanics exists. Simply wouldn’t be fun for console gamers.
Or, you know, Blizzard wants you to sell crap at the Real Money Auction House. But a for-profit company? Wanting to make money? That’s cah-ray-zee!
The reason you can’t host a named game? Auto join for console users.
Again, he has a point here, although we suspect Blizzard had different reasons for this. Namely if somebody decided to name their game “C***F**” or something, Blizzard would have to shut down the entire game down.
The reason for achievements in game? It’s popular among console / COD fans.
I know somebody who doesn’t use Steam!
The reason for passive skills? Perks like Call of Duty uses. Everyone unlocks perks and uses their favorite ones.
Having played the game, this isn’t console-specific. It’s pretty clearly a gameplay choice designed to make the game more accessible.
PC gamers are just beta testing for the console release so it wont be full of bugs. That’s how ActiBlizz intends to make the real money.
First of all, PC development and console development are… slightly different. Secondly, Diablo III sold 12 million copies on PC alone. That’s $720 million retail before you factor in the Real Money Auction House. More to the point, those are big numbers for any game. If you look on a console by console basis, moving five million copies on any one platform is usually enough to get you into the top twenty best sellers of all time. Call of Duty sells twenty million or so, but that’s across all platforms. By any reasonable standard, Diablo is potentially a much bigger franchise.
Don’t get us wrong: Diablo III for consoles was pretty obviously in the cards, because Blizzard likes money, and the way modern-day game development works, the more platforms you put a game on, the more money you make. There’s an excellent reason the PS4 is, in the broad strokes, a gaming PC in terms of specs, and by all accounts, the Next Xbox is similar: It will save third parties on development costs because they can make the game for PC, then tune it to the consoles.
But it also seems unlikely this was the plan from the start. While there’s a lot that’s terrible about Diablo III, mostly with its abusive always-on DRM policy and oddly out-of-touch handling of its community, it is first and foremost a game built around the mouse.
Honestly, to make the game remotely playable on consoles, and it seems unlikely this won’t be headed to the Xbox 360, Blizzard is going to have to engage in major changes. We’ll be curious to see what those are.




Money, that is what this is all about. Shit will be janky as fuck, but it will make dolla bills yall.
Yeah, unless they COMPLETELY redo the control scheme, this will be a mess.
I played the beta, wasn’t really impressed, and never bought it. Is it in the value bin yet? Maybe I should try it, but my console owning brain just isn’t advanced enough, I guess.
If you’ve got to play a game like this, give twenty bucks to Torchlight II.
Absolutely. Loved Torchlight, the pet was inspired.
Seconded in regards to Torchlight II.
woo more RMAH janking. I’d love to see a breakdown of the RMAH since the Diablo 3 economy is basically as follows: A good item is worthless, an above average item is cheap and a great item is ALL THE MONEY EVER. I just picked it back up now that I decided I hate every other game except WoW and L4D and it is so easy to farm and buy good gear for basically nothing on the gold auction house I’d imagine the RMAH is left to those who did the unsanctioned real money trading in Diablo 2.
I also wish that the limited skill selection vs available skill options would work its way into every other RPG/MMO game out there. It is a lot more fun than filling up action bar #4 with more skills.
Maybe this is for the people that would like to enjoy the game without shelling out thousands of dollars for a purpose built gaming PC?
Or perhaps it really IS just to appeal to those who just recently learned to use this thing with all the letters arranged out of order that lets you put funny things on the interwebs… KEYBOARD, oh man that’s the word I was looking for.
Welcome to 2013 … unlike in your time you can building yourself a damn fine gaming ring for $800.
*build* jeez, I sound like Borat.
A fine gaming rig for $800 is still $400 more than the PS4
*rig* stupid autocorrect.
Oh, I agree it’s more, Nip. But the argument being made was that it was going to cost “thousands” for a gaming rig … and that’s crazy talk.
Yes, that one is not true. Unless you really want to max everything out, a good gaming PC is not prohibitively expensive and will have a longer life than any of these new consoles.
You’re also assuming that the theoretical person in question possesses the knowledge to build a gaming rig themselves.
Also, “longer life” is a bit misleading. I can go find a Nintendo that still plays the games it was designed to, and works just as well as it did when it was built in 1985 28 years later. How many computers do you own that still work as they were intended even 5 years later? If you want to keep up with the latest games being played as they are intended on a console you don’t need any upgrades unless you’re moving up to a new console (which if you own a PS3 that cost $300, and upgrade to a $400 PS4 you’re still in under the $800), if you’re doing that on a gaming rig you’re going to need regular hardware upgrades (top of the line video cards, sound cards, processors, etc.) and the cost starts to add up quickly
I took my old ass PC with a 64 bit celeron processor bought a new motherboard, one of those AMD CPU/GPU combo chips and 8 gigs of ram for under 200 bucks and I was up and playing Far Cry 3 and XCom.
… hmm not much point to that story was there. I guess I just wanted to brag over my thriftyness.
That seems like just enough to run X-COM: Terror From The Deep
You’d be surprised, those amd cpu/gpu chips are pretty slick. I’m not running anything on super high rez or anything but games run. Xcom runs on medium detail and Far Cry has to be turned way down. I guess the moral is if you don’t need to buy a new Hard Drive, Case, Power Supply etc, you can start PC gaming for surprising little $$
Of course, Sony is underway ruining the Diablo franchise just like they ruined Mass Effect!
Bah humbug
That ship was wrecked well before Sony showed up.
If “passive skills” mean passives, then someone never played an Amazon, Barbarian, or Paladin in Diablo II.
That is exactly what they mean. Have like 15 passive abilities to select from for your three passive skill slots.
To be fair, D2 was not that different in this regard since you basically allocated skill points and maxed certain passives. Amazons had basically 4: The dodge passives and pierce. Paladins had 1, whatever Aura you were using. Barbs had like 3: Weapon Mastery, Natural Resistance, and Iron Skin.
I’ve been a “Console” player my entire life (tried to go a PC when I was a teenager, but unfortunately my parents thought a “PC Upgrade” was buying a new EMachines, yeah I know, first world problems). I’ve been giving some serious thought about building a serious PC build and trying to go that route again, but it’s nerd rage like this that makes me pull the reigns back on that idea.
With that said, I probably will get Diablo III for a console just because I highly doubt they’ll be able to integrate their DRM with the PSN or XBox Live networks.
from the sounds of it they won’t have to integrate Blizzard’s DRM, the PS4 and Xbox the 3rd are going to have their own proprietary DRM systems.
I’m sure they’ll have integrated battle.net and integrated Sony PSN
I posted on this on Kotaku, and will repeat here:
Blizzard said from the beginning that Diablo III always could potentially come to consoles. They announced it for PC, but said it could be ported. This should not be a big surprise, especially on PS4. PS3 is a little more surprising, but not as surprising as 360 would be, considering Microsoft’s controlling nature.
Secondly, Diablo has been on consoles before. Diablo II was ported over after being on PC for a while, so Diablo III doing the same is not all that Earth-shattering.
If the Auction House goes to PS3, then there is absolutely nothing to be shocked about. Of course Blizzard wants to make money. They are not as console adverse as the PC Master Race jerks would have you believe. Remember, they made The Lost Vikings. Those games went to consoles.
The Lost Vikings really needs to make a comeback.
I agree that Diablo III for consoles was always going to happen; there have been rumors it’s been in development for years.
If I had to guess, I’d say the pissier members of the PCMR are starting to get angry over the fact that they see themselves as being abandoned. And it’s hard to argue, but, dude, take it out on the companies.
I remember when I was growing up playing the original Diablo on a PSone. It was no worse that playing it on PC.
People get torn up over which console is better and which brand is better. It’s silly.