Rumor: Diablo 3 will arrive before StarCraft 2

by Justin McElroy { Sep 15th 2008 at 1:30PM }

We don't know who the staffers of BattleForums are friends with at Blizzard, but suffice to say we want to meet them. The site says a source at the company let it slip that Diablo 3 would actually arrive before the previously announced StarCraft 2, saying: "[Starcraft 2] is still being worked on, but only by a minuscule [sic] amount of people compared to what [Blizzard] put on the Diablo 3 team."

So, if true (and Blizzard is hardly going to confess), is this good news for you? Bad? Which Blizzard project has you popping in your Index Fingers of Steel VHS in anticipation?

Tags: blizzard, diablo-3, starcraft-2

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

AwesomeTown @ Sep 15th 2008 1:35PM

Looking forward to Diablo III slightly more, but as long as they actually do come out, I don't care when.

Casey @ Sep 29th 2008 11:48AM

No diablo is not coming out first.. Its a rumor and exactly that.

Check this out.

http://www.starcraftvanilla.com/news/1056-starcraft-2-release-date-confirmed.html

http://www.starcraftvanilla.com

AwesomeTown @ Sep 29th 2008 12:15PM

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you probably didn't need to post on a 2 week old article. I don't think many people will be back here.

deadjesterx @ Sep 15th 2008 1:39PM

Oof, that's a hard one to call. I'm looking forward to both titles.

I'm rather skeptical about this rumor though. They have released a whole lot more information about SC2 than D3. Also SC2 was in development since right after they finished WC3, while (as far as I know) we havn't a clue when they actually started on D3.

Titanium_Orchid @ Sep 15th 2008 1:56PM

The engine for Starcraft 2 is probably 80-90% done and Blizzard is working with testers to refine balance issues and test existing/design new units. When they have finished this, then they can start on the single player campaign and AI tweaks. Also, the article states that the dev. team is much smaller for Starcraft.

Combine this with the fact that, as you stated, we don't actually know how far into development they are for Diablo 3, this rumor is probably true.

Ihavepants @ Sep 15th 2008 5:58PM

They were one third through creating the single player campaign in July.

Shagittarius @ Sep 15th 2008 1:39PM

Sweet, I'm only interested in Diablo 3 so the earlier the better.

Waqman @ Sep 15th 2008 1:40PM

Looking forward to Starcraft 2 more so this is good news to me anyways. More time to polish.

Morisato @ Sep 15th 2008 3:34PM

Not to bum you out or anything but this doesn't necessarily mean more time for polish. Blizzard has always been a company that releases games when they feel it is ready, and not one that is pressured by release dates. If it takes 1000 man-hours for Blizzard to feel it's ready, they will take 1000 man-hours. By taking resources away from SC2 and moving it to D3, Blizzard only slows down the amount of man-hours spent on the game over time, thus delaying the release.

Nirolak @ Sep 15th 2008 1:40PM

This actually makes sense from a business point of view.

If StarCraft 2 was released ten years from now exactly the same way it is today, the majority of its target audience would still be there.

Diablo III however, being an action-adventure game, has a much larger pressure to keep up with the standards of the time, so getting it out sooner would be a much larger boon to that game than StarCraft.

syrik zero @ Sep 15th 2008 1:41PM

I'm looking forward to Diablo 3. Not much of an RTS guy... They bore me..... Because I suck at them =)

BiweeklyAaron @ Sep 15th 2008 1:49PM

There's no way this is true, Starcraft 2 is in a much more playable form than Diablo 3 is. When a project is getting closer to done you usually take people off it to work on other things that still have a lot of work to do on them. That's why there are so many more people working on D3 at the moment.

Jeff @ Sep 15th 2008 4:39PM

+1 because I hope you're right.

Will @ Sep 15th 2008 1:49PM

Hell yeah. Bring me Diablo 3 as fast as possible. All else can wait.

Erik J @ Sep 15th 2008 1:51PM

INC Gamers has some pretty good evidence that this rumor is 100% false.

http://www.incgamers.com/Games/1935/News/Diablo-III-Release-Date-Rumour-Debunked/13753

JoeTheBlow @ Sep 15th 2008 3:35PM

The whole "its on the web, so it must be true news" slack attitude Joystiq has been taking recently is getting out of hand.

This site is really going down the tubes.

Maic @ Sep 15th 2008 1:52PM

MY EYES!!!!

too much color in that screenshot...

Morisato @ Sep 15th 2008 2:02PM

I hope they add more color to piss off you whiners. Seriously, it's fine the way it is and Blizzard knows that you're still going to buy the game despite the way it looks because, after all, it's a Diablo game so STFU already.

Dirty @ Sep 15th 2008 2:03PM

tcc3 @ Sep 15th 2008 3:19PM

I think its funny that people were so up in arms about the color scheme and theres been hardly a peep about the change in the health potion mechanic.

In the end its gonna look good no matter the choice of palette, but the health potion thing has the potential to change the gameplay in a big way - maybe for the worse.

Jakka(Free Mr.ESC!) @ Sep 15th 2008 3:38PM

...or just wait for a mod? We're not those console suckers that have to wait for months to get some new maps/patches.

Kael @ Sep 15th 2008 4:18PM

"I think its funny that people were so up in arms about the color scheme and theres been hardly a peep about the change in the health potion mechanic."

I've seen a fair amount of discussion on those health orbs. But don't misrepresent it; from what we're told, health potions are in and work the same way as in the previous game. There's just another type of potion in the game now, too, that you just can't save for use later. I doubt it will change the game much, but probably not for the worse. We'll see in 2010.

And since it's been brought up, I'll try to put the complex color thing simply: if Dead Space 2 copied Diablo 3's visuals, there would be the same amount of disappointment. You can't take a horror franchise and lighten it up and stylize it without busting expectations, especially when the last game in the series came out eight years ago--it doesn't matter if the new look looks good or not, it's an inconsistent look and that's just plain disappointing all by itself.

We'll all get used to it eventually, like we'll get used to the new Prince of Persia or Stargate Worlds, but Diablo didn't have to change; Blizzard's the one company on Earth that doesn't have to worry about reinventing their older franchises to appeal to even broader audiences, and their excuse that horror doesn't work well with polygons, honestly, couldn't be much more preposterous. It's clear the talented, respectable guys at Blizzard were fans of the Diablo games and want to make Diablo 3 a true sequel and ultra-fun Diablo game, because it looks to be just that, but unfortunately their love of the style and aesthetic genre of the series didn't run as deep or they wouldn't have changed it.

If you haven't seen this already (http://www.deriss.net/diablo3/Diablo_3.html), check it out and try to get an idea--a general concept or notion--of what Diablo 3 could have looked like; I think it's pretty cool. (If it's all the same, please send messages of your seething hatred of people who like horror games to be dark to the guy who made the video, not to me. Thanks.)

Mike @ Sep 15th 2008 1:55PM

Diablo III will become my life's top priority upon it's release, so the sooner I can get past the impending year and a half of addiction and compulsion the better.

FOXHOUND @ Sep 15th 2008 1:59PM

If they could be released before this time next year, that'd be nice...

Mythor @ Sep 15th 2008 1:59PM

This rumour has been widely debunked for quite some time. And it never made any sense anyway. You really think Blizzard is going to strip large portions of the SC2 development team when they have Korea ready to spend $48billion on it? Pfft.

Even if it was true and D3 was coming first... We're still going to be waiting ages for either, so who cares? Totally meh-tacular rumour.

Dirty @ Sep 15th 2008 2:04PM

Care to source your debunking?

Zertoss @ Sep 15th 2008 2:12PM

http://www.diii.net/n/693200/d3-release-date-rumors

This rumor is total bullshit.

yo, Funk Master @ Sep 15th 2008 2:05PM

FINALLY! The gaming gods favor is finally raining down upon the Diablo fans...

On a less important note, seems like Starcraft players can't catch a break

Alex M @ Sep 15th 2008 2:10PM

Sorry, Justin, but "minuscule" is a proper word, and that is its proper spelling. You should remove the [sic].

Carson @ Sep 15th 2008 2:21PM

+1

Alex is correct, the spelling with an "i" is something fairly new.

meist3r @ Sep 15th 2008 2:24PM

The [sic] is usually used to indicate a direct quote and thus a remark about the importance of whatever was said. We on the other hand have become used to read this mostly in connections with spelling mistakes e.g. "Then he told me he was a nucular [sic] engineer". In this case I would assume it's used in the appropriate way to point the reader at the fact that someone from Blizzard actually confirmed that they've reduced the number of people working on their (most) anticipated project to a very small amount. So his source apparently actually spoke of a "minuscule" amount of people as compared to "still quite a few people" or some other phrasing one would expect from developers talking about their pet project.

Alex M @ Sep 15th 2008 2:48PM

I didn't know about the whole "remark about the importance" aspect. But in any case, the whole quote is precisely about the importance of the difference in staff numbers. So I believe adding [sic] after minuscule doesn't make much sense nor adds any new meaning.

justin @ Sep 15th 2008 2:17PM

WEAK WEAK WEAK WEAK WEAK WEAK. Diablo 2 came out AFTER Starcraft so why does that series get a sequel BEFORE! This is an outrage I tell ya, and outrage.

Still can't complain too much to get a Blizzard game sooner :-)

meist3r @ Sep 15th 2008 2:19PM

I think I'll have to put my computer into a horadrim cube with some gems to run those. How I hate progress ;) This will set me back a good 1000€ just play those two games. Talk about Triple-A titles.

Yourself @ Sep 15th 2008 2:24PM

I don't know about DIII, but the speculated (I don't think they're official yet) minimum requirements for StarCraft II are just about nothing. The 600$ desktop I bought for my parents 2 years ago could run it.

meist3r @ Sep 15th 2008 2:28PM

The problem with projected sysreqs today is that they never hold up to a satisfying experience. My PC could run Crysis ... but I'd rather go back playing Farcry because it looks about the same when I turn Crysis' settings down. I'll have to build a new computer anyhow at some point and I'll definitely wait for the final specs to go about doing that. The last thing I calculated was 800$ hardware and pretty much second in every class. First place stuff is way too expensive when you can get comparable results for a third less. Anyhow, even if I can afford the hardware I would have to install Windows and that is just way beyond my level of sacrifice I want to make for a game again.

Yourself @ Sep 15th 2008 4:14PM

If you don't mind my asking... what pieces of hardware are you getting?
I'm getting ready to buy parts to build a PC for the first time, and I'm not sure where people get numbers like 800$, as with only one graphics card my estimate was 1500$.

Either way, if you could run Crysis on any settings, I have a feeling SCII will be a piece of cake. Blizzard's strategy has always been to go easy on hardware so more people can play the game.

meist3r @ Sep 15th 2008 6:02PM

Well I did some online research a couple of weeks ago and came up with this (all Euros):

Intel C2Duo 3Ghz 125,-
Asus P5Q Deluxe Mobo 142,-
GEIL 4GB DDR2 Kit PC2 9600 92,-
(this one will change to sth faster):
Elitegroup Geforce 8800GT 512MB 113,-
(prly different one too):
Sharkoon Rebel Case 43,-
WD Caviar 500GB drive 54,-
Xilence 600W power supply 51,-
Logitech MX518 mouse 29,-

Together with some cables and some smaller stuff I get something just above 650€. I would switch to a better gfx card in the final one so with another 100-150€ I am well withing 800€ limit. Usually the hardware is even cheaper in the US even despite the currently bad exchange rates so I don't know how you would spend 1500$ on a new sys. If you look a little below the top of the hardware spectrum and sacrifice the seldomly used hardcore specs then you can get off way cheaper and still have ample performance. I usually get the "second best" in everything and just by staying behind the latest trends just one step you can save tons of money and you will never even need that extra bit of power for your gaming. Bleeding edge machines have the worst value ratio and the little tiny bit of performance you can gain is really only important for the enthusiasts, benchmarkers and overclockers. For the regular guy like me second best in the current hardware market is definitely good enough.

Yourself @ Sep 15th 2008 2:22PM

Didn't they say the release of StarCraft II would coincide with the release of Battle.net 2? This rumor would imply Diablo III will either run on Bnet1, or they lied about Bnet2 (neither of which make any sense at all, therefore me = doubtful).

The sooner the better for both of them, though. I'm getting tired of exhausting the different Druid builds.

Urza @ Sep 15th 2008 2:24PM

Good news to me, I'm more interested in Diablo then Starcraft (only because I don't really like strategy games anymore.)

Morisato @ Sep 15th 2008 3:33PM

jcaffoe @ Sep 15th 2008 3:39PM

A small development team means the game is CLOSER to release, not further away. Once the assets for a game have largely been finished, the majority of the team moves to another project that requires more attention. This leaves a small subset of dedicated programmers to work on balance issues.

I can't believe this rumor has gotten this much attention.

Ron @ Sep 15th 2008 3:55PM

This isn't surprisng at all really. I bet Starcraft isn't going to ever come out.

CJLopez @ Sep 15th 2008 4:10PM

Man, that pic looks pretty sweet, sad paladin, amazon and assasin won't be comming back, but Barbarian looks way to overpowered!!!!!

shawn @ Sep 15th 2008 4:14PM

i think starcraft 2 will be out before diablo 3 only because starcraft 2 has been in the works for years..i cant even remember when they announced starcraft 2 i know its been a long time years

Blazur @ Sep 15th 2008 4:18PM

I'm thinking that Diablo3 could potentially absorb WoW subscribers with its similar play style, while SC2 is a completely different beast. Releasing SC2 first would be more logical so they can capitalize most on WoW.

Regardless, I don't think my life can handle a near-simultaneous release of 2 smash-hit Blizzard titles. I'll have to quit my job and go into hibernation.

Eric794 @ Sep 15th 2008 4:19PM

The reason why there are only a few working on Starcraft 2 is because it is almost finish, they only need so many to polish the game. They are now focusing on Diablo 3 which wont be out for a long time, so don't get your hopes up

Collision891 @ Sep 15th 2008 10:38PM

"[Starcraft 2] is still being worked on, but only by a minuscule [sic] amount of people compared to what [Blizzard] put on the Diablo 3 team."

Thats the quote that the whole article is based on???

Then that means Starcraft 2 will be out sooner. People need better reading comprehension. If alot of people are getting pulled from one project to be put another then the first project is either near completion or being cancelled. I think we know SC2 isnt going to be cancelled, so itll likely be done soon.

labrats5 @ Sep 16th 2008 12:31AM

I'm not even slightly surprised by this. Diablo 3 immediately captured my attention. The combat looks leaps and bounds better/ more visceral than the original. And of they can actually deliver randomized quests in a way that doesn't feel tacked on, I might never stop playing the game.

By Starcraft2? I have seen absolutely nothing there that didn't make me say "oh, so it's exactly like the original Starcraft, except in 3d and with some minor gameplay tweaks". The only thing is maybe that Raynor single player thing, but they didn't explain it well enough for me to care.

They simply can't release Starcraft 2 if that's all it's going to be. They have to find something that will make it stand out as its own game and not a phoned in sequel. Diablo 3 already has that "it" factor for me. I'm still waiting on Starcraft 2.