-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Blizzard CEO comments on Diablo III for consoles
- Thread starter Pooya
- Start date
Drunkenthumbmaster
Banned
It will be some concessions to the gameplayl. But it's ridiculous to think it can't be done.
The Lamonster
Member
I'm all for it, if only for the exposure to the console audience of Blizzard and the genre itself.
As for whether the controls will work, I was pleasantly surprised with the Halo Wars controls, so I'm cautiously optimistic about this.
As for whether the controls will work, I was pleasantly surprised with the Halo Wars controls, so I'm cautiously optimistic about this.
If Sony let Valve put Steamworks support on PS3, I'm sure they'll let Blizzard use Battle.net. Now will Blizzard want to do the work to make a modified version of Battle.net that works on PSN like Valve did the work to make Steamworks integrate with PSN.
Call of Duty is interesting. As much crap as Activision gets at times, Call of Duty games fully embrace Steamworks integration. They don't wall around their own services like EA does. Is it possible the next CoD game on PS3 might be Steamworks enabled alongside the PC version?
Lazy vs Crazy said:
Call of Duty is interesting. As much crap as Activision gets at times, Call of Duty games fully embrace Steamworks integration. They don't wall around their own services like EA does. Is it possible the next CoD game on PS3 might be Steamworks enabled alongside the PC version?
AzureNightmare
Banned
If there is one subsidiary that Kotick can't boss around its Blizzard. There's a contractual agreement that exists to give Blizzard complete and total control over themselves. Kotick can ask them to do something, and they have every right to tell him to go piss himself or something.
A console release of diablo 3 around the same time as the PC release would actually make them LESS money. Consoles have a used game market and they get a smaller cut of each sale. Blizzard games have the longest tail of any PC games for sales so losing sales to used games could add up to quite a lot over time. Blizzard games work on a huge range of older PCs so it's rare for someone who wants a blizzard game to not be able to play it. Even integrated boxes can grab a $50 video card and play blizzard games.
I actually think diablo 3 can do 15 million units before starcraft 2 does. Diablo 3 has more mainstream appeal due to being more newbie friendly plus it's much more similar to WoW so they can probably pull off an insane conversion rate of current and former WoW players.
Consoles could really hurt sales due to used games, and hurt revenue due to platform cut.
Consoles could really hurt sales due to used games, and hurt revenue due to platform cut.
charlequin
Banned
It's honestly difficult for me to see the money proposition here. Blizzard games sell immensely well on PC; Diablo 3 will easily outsell Starcraft 2 by a significant margin on PC alone. It's hard for me to imagine there are many untapped customers on consoles as opposed to just customers who would switch their platform.
It'd probably be a take-it-or-leave-it proposition: let us use our own service or game is PS3 only. Microsoft would probably leave it.
Mike Morhaime reports directly to Kotick. If he wants to, Kotick can do absolutely anything to the Blizzard organization, good or bad. The thing stopping him isn't any contractual obligation, it's a) Blizzard are wildly profitable and b) Activision is still majority-owned by Vivendi and their apparent preference is for Blizzard to be kept on a long leash.
No.
Xater said:
It'd probably be a take-it-or-leave-it proposition: let us use our own service or game is PS3 only. Microsoft would probably leave it.
AzureNightmare said:
Mike Morhaime reports directly to Kotick. If he wants to, Kotick can do absolutely anything to the Blizzard organization, good or bad. The thing stopping him isn't any contractual obligation, it's a) Blizzard are wildly profitable and b) Activision is still majority-owned by Vivendi and their apparent preference is for Blizzard to be kept on a long leash.
Dedication Through Light said:
No.
Ya, $10-15 DLC can sell but the GTA episodes at $25? seriously underperformed. Blizzard is used to getting near 100% of customers upgrading to their $40 expansions. Having any potential PC customer buy on console risks: reduced expansion sales, smaller margin due to platform cut, and used game sales.
They have more to lose on console than they have to gain.
They have more to lose on console than they have to gain.
Beer Monkey
Member
I remember when you couldn't play Madden on Xbox because Microsoft didn't want EA to use their own servers and logins.
Things change.
If Blizzard comes to consoles there's no fucking way in hell that Microsoft will take a pass. They'll figure out a way to make it work.
Things change.
If Blizzard comes to consoles there's no fucking way in hell that Microsoft will take a pass. They'll figure out a way to make it work.
Hari Seldon
Member
If they bring this to consoles it will NEVER come out. Our grandkids will still be waiting for D3.
quickwhips
Member
if torchlight can be on xbla then i can see diablo 3 coming to console.
Hari Seldon
Member
StuBurns said:
Because blizzard has 10 programmers and 9 of them work on WoW. If you throw in a console port you are talking about 3-4 years more of additional work if they want to launch them simultaneous.
I made that all up but how else do you explain the duke-nukem style development of D3?
Developers who crow about how the PC version of their multiplatform game hasn't been affected by console ports are usually lying.StuBurns said:
Console ports usually wind up affecting the PC version in ways besides controls. Severely limited RAM and a lousy patching mechanism being the usual culprits. Which isn't to say it happens in every case, just that it's a legitimate concern.
The simple answer is that blizzard will make less money overall if a console port exists for the reasons I stated previously. Even today, anywhere that sells PC games carries Starcraft Battlechest, Warcraft 3 Battlechest, and Diablo Battlechest. Theyre still always around the top10 or 20 sellers of PC games every year. If a console version of Diablo 3 exist, the constant recycling of used games over a decade would amount to a ton of lost sales over time, lower expansion pack sales due to difficulty selling $40 DLC that requires a base game, and a shift of some sales from PC to console resulting in lower margins. Add to that the cost of supporting the console version and it just doesn't make sense.StuBurns said:
Also the market for diablo style game on consoles is unproven. Sacred 2 did poorly on consoles and ran at like a constant 20fps. These isometric games look simple but they have a lot going on, Diablo 3 being the best looking game in the genre won't make it any easier to make run smoothly on console.
Lagspike_exe
Member
mysteriousmage09 said:
Maybe they can't force them, but they can definitely try to push them to do it.
If there is any compromise to the PC version, then fine, that's a perfectly reasonable reason to fear a port, but there's no way Blizzard would ever do that.Hari Seldon said:
You have no idea what the game would sell on consoles. It could sell thirty million units at $60 and make more than Diablo 2 ever did for all we know.Zzoram said:
neoism
Member
Really I thought Blizzard does their own shit.... I mean don't they still own their games, or does Activision. The wait for this game is insane already anyway, so any person that really would want to play it will buy it on PC. I'll take them another 4 years to port it lol....StuBurns said:
Former Blizzard employee
Has anyone considered that this could very well be for the PS3/360 successors? The game doesn't come out on PC until 2012: that could easily mean 2013 for consoles.
If it's on PS3/360, it would be in the twilight of those system's lifespans and would represent huge bottlenecks for RAM usage. Not saying it's impossible: just not sure why people are still assuming the 360 will be a modern platform when it reaches its 8th Christmas (which is where it will be in 2012).
If it's on PS3/360, it would be in the twilight of those system's lifespans and would represent huge bottlenecks for RAM usage. Not saying it's impossible: just not sure why people are still assuming the 360 will be a modern platform when it reaches its 8th Christmas (which is where it will be in 2012).
AranhaHunter
Banned
Majine said:
I'm sure it's been brought up, but what's stopping Blizzard from integrating Battle.net with PSN like Valve is doing with Steam?
OT: I would buy it if it came out on PS3.
This is the only scenario where I could see a console port being viable. Next generation will also likely have serial keys for console games to access online and that would definitely be something Blizzard will require for a console port. They don't want to lose money to used sales.Opiate said:
That's going from an installbase of 80 million to nothing. Doesn't seem a very good idea unless they're also willing to wait till that installbase builds up again.Opiate said:
However you have a point certainly, although more with the expansions, they'll be supporting the game beyond the life of these systems.
I just think it's odd that people seem to project the PS3/360 almost infinitely into the future.
If I were starting a game now, and that game had, oh, a 2 year development cycle, I'd be launching my game when the 360 is over 8 years old. I'm not saying the platform will be dead by then, just as the PS2 isn't dead now: but I'd certainly stop and pause, as they heyday of the platform will most likely be gone.
I can already see the 360 (if not the PS3) coming apart at the seams: more games requiring 2+ discs, more games with significantly compromised graphics (Crysis 2 being the most recent example) or compromised gameplay (BF3 being a recent example), and it seems no one is capable of pushing the system well beyond Gears 2, technologically. Again, not saying that it's impossible that this machine will still be considered "current" by the time 2013 hits, but it certainly seems possible that this machine will be less relevant by then.
If I were making this new game, I'd look for a fresher alternative. Perhaps one does not exist: perhaps Sony and Microsoft both plan to truly keep this generation around for 10 years with absolutley no successor and we'll all be stuck with this technological level through 2016. But it seems odd we're not even considering the possibility that a game which is unlikely to come out until 2012/2013 will actually be on the PS4/720/Wii2/whatever.
If I were starting a game now, and that game had, oh, a 2 year development cycle, I'd be launching my game when the 360 is over 8 years old. I'm not saying the platform will be dead by then, just as the PS2 isn't dead now: but I'd certainly stop and pause, as they heyday of the platform will most likely be gone.
I can already see the 360 (if not the PS3) coming apart at the seams: more games requiring 2+ discs, more games with significantly compromised graphics (Crysis 2 being the most recent example) or compromised gameplay (BF3 being a recent example), and it seems no one is capable of pushing the system well beyond Gears 2, technologically. Again, not saying that it's impossible that this machine will still be considered "current" by the time 2013 hits, but it certainly seems possible that this machine will be less relevant by then.
If I were making this new game, I'd look for a fresher alternative. Perhaps one does not exist: perhaps Sony and Microsoft both plan to truly keep this generation around for 10 years with absolutley no successor and we'll all be stuck with this technological level through 2016. But it seems odd we're not even considering the possibility that a game which is unlikely to come out until 2012/2013 will actually be on the PS4/720/Wii2/whatever.
It's actually a liability for Kotick to have control over Blizzard. Blizzard has been autonomous for a decade and has become the most successful PC developer ever, and nothing but Call of Duty exists than can challenge Blizzards franchise and revenue strength. Kotick just ran guitar hero and Tony hawk into the ground, do you think when Vivendi decided who would be in charge of what, they would trust anyone but Blizzard to decide what Blizzard does?hsukardi said:
StuBurns said:
I agree. I think Diablo 3 would be hitting at an awkward time on consoles: 2013 will almost certainly be a time when the current generation systems are in decline from a software standpoint (i.e. they will sell less software in 2013 than they did in 2012), but it also won't be a time when the new generation of consoles has hit a critical mass in terms of install base.
Hitting as a 'Diablo 3 Complete' in like 2016 with all the expansions could be a good fit, if all three consoles are technologically viable, and have been out for a couple of years, it'll be a nice install base at that point.Opiate said:
Also hopefully a few console MMOs have done well enough to twist the first parties arms into opening up to third parties having direct control of their software after it goes to retail.
I understand why that isn't the case this time around (although Sony have allowed it a couple of times) but maybe next time developers/publishers could be given that kind of freedom.
NullPointer
Member
Diablo 3 on the console(s) is one of the biggest no-brainers in gaming history. Get on with it already.
Attack You
Member
I'm not convinced Blizzard is committed to the idea right now. They're just "investigating" it, after all. On the other hand, I could see why they would want Diablo to have presence on consoles. Otherwise, someone else will eventually step in to fill that niche and reap the rewards for themselves.
Minsc
Gold Member
Opiate said:
I think it's doable too, huge RAM usage could be toned down pretty easily, I think. Lower quality textures, etc. Nothing strikes me as particularly troubling to port over from what I've seen of the game... Torchlight making it over kinda proves in some sense D3 could make it over, just need the overhead for the multiplayer, but TL2 will be on consoles, and that has multiplayer I think.
From the sounds of discussion here about next gen, it seems most people want the PS3/360 to be viable platforms for like the next 10 years, and looking at the rate which studios are dropping like flies, I imagine they want that as well.
They could always put out a next-gen patch, so existing PS3/360 owners could patch their game so the PS4/720 runs at higher settings or whatever. After all, this is Blizzard, and when it comes to support, Blizzard is pretty much best in class.
NullPointer
Member
Very much THIS. But considering the moneybags they can make on each platform, its worth the investment of time and resources to tailor each version of the game to fit its platform perfectly.IoCaster said: