Blizzard to return to console development 'at some point'

Right, its totally the button mashing, versus mouse clicking, that's got 'em worked up.

Has nothing to do with the stripped down content, no sirree bob.

What section of your ass did you pull that from? The diablo game that came out on ps1?

I hate to wake you up from your 15 year slumber, but consoles have gotten a lot more powerful since then. They won't have to chop any content down for consoles.

Ha, right, my years-old consoles are totally going to be able to keep up with my ever changing and upgraded PC. I'm sure there will be absolutely no problem.

Never played Diablo for PS1, but I have definitely played console versions of PC games and been sorely disappointed. Sorry.

You're one of the few people I've met that would brag about foolishly spending tons of money to constantly upgrade a pc just to get a minimal graphics upgrade over a much cheaper console.

"Over"? I may prefer to game on the PC but I own an XBOX 360, PS3, and Wii. And DS. You sound like a sore loser who can't afford to keep up.

Hate to break it to you but now you're playing PC versions of console games.

Not only that, but the timing of Diablo III may mean they could just plan to do the console release on the next generation. Plus, Blizzard games are known for setting the bar low so they play on as many PCs as is reasonably possible. It's not like we're talking about porting some game that is going to be bringing high-end PCs to their knees.

And if you're talking about controls, there may need to be some concessions here and there, but realistically it's not that big of a jump to go from a game like Marvel Ultimate Alliance, which works fine on consoles, to a game like Diablo.

@ GG, you realize this game, like all Blizzard games, is touted as running on one of the widest specs of any big-budget major release PC game. Why is it so hard to accept that it will run on our lowly consoles?

"You sound like a sore loser who can't afford to keep up"

No I sound like someone who's smart with their money, and who doesn't want to spend it all just to play all of my console games with a very minimal graphical upgrade.

Out of all the pc exclusives out there (which there aren't many), there's only 2 I see worth playing and that's this and WoW. Maybe kotor mmo if it turns out well. Sorry but that's not worth $800 minimum.

If Crysis 2 can run beautifully on consoles, there is absolutely no reason why Blizzard couldn't port them.

Aside from the possibility they may not want to separate their games from Battle.net, especially since it's becoming a much more integral part of the games now.

Diablo could easily work on consoles, but it will be limiting to what you can do on PC, if only because the keyboard has more inputs than a controller. Hotkeys and whatnot, but the lack of it wouldn't destroy a console port of Diablo 3, far from it. I just imagine Blizzard would build a game FOR consoles, rather than port one, like was done with Warcraft 2, Diablo, and Starcraft.

But, seriously, one of the big points of Blizzard is to make games anyone can play on a wide range of computers, instead of having to buy the high-end of a current generation or past generation to pull out consistently playable FPS.

If you are so damn smart with your money, go be an investment banker.

I love spending money on my computer every 3 to 4 years, I use it for WAY more than games, and the speed and graphical prowess are a must have for the heavy usage it gets.

While your slinging mud at people who like to spend/invest in their computer, lets go start fights with people who restore old cars, and people who blow cash on pay per view events.

@Granger,

I don't know, maybe its just the PC feels more like a big boy toy. I honestly wish instead of being a specs whore, Blizzard would instead invest more time into utilizing the PCs full power...'cause if their next game can honestly run on the current gen consoles, then they're not doing all they can. I want the biggest, newest, and best. Consoles are stuck where they are until the next generation, my computer is not.

@HighFiveJesus

Agreed.

You don't really fit the bill highfivejesus. 3-4 years is normal for most computer buyers for upgrading or replacing their computers. The PC Gaming fanboy will be lucky if he/she can hold on to their money for 18 months before upgrading a key component.

There is definitely a large gap between the consoles and PC in terms of power, but unfortunately, many games to the PC are console ports and do not take full advantage of the PC and what it has to offer. That's what happens when consoles are sadly in the majority of the industry.

This gap will keep growing larger as the next consoles aren't coming anytime soon and may even be like the Wii, a small upgrade in power. We know that Epic loves consoles and hates PCs now, and they state the next Unreal Engine 4 won't come until the next consoles do, whereas PCs could probably already run them.

All I see here is tons of PC fanboy crying, which I can't get enough of honestly.

But still quit crying. Consoles will always be on top in the industry, learn to cope with it.

tmac,

"I don't want to buy a whole new computer just to play that and like 2 other games."

With the exception of (perhaps) WOW, Blizzard's games are usually quite resource light compared to similar titles released around the same time frame. I sincerely doubt Diablo III is going to be more demanding than, say, The Witcher (a game which requires a sub-$90 videocard in order to play completely maxed out) or maybe even Devil May Cry 4 (again, easily maxed out on low-end hardware). In the same way, I can say with a degree of certainty that Starcraft II will probably be much easier on your hardware than Supreme Commander or World in conflict.

@nerdydesi

What you say is true, yet as had been pointed out already, Blizzard aims low anyway. Arguably the most successful PC developer aims low by choice, not due to consoles.

@Granger

"The PC Gaming fanboy will be lucky if he/she can hold on to their money for 18 months before upgrading a key component."

I've had this computer for a year an a half and I'm not upgrading anytime soon. The idea that you need to upgrade every year is just ridiculous. I can still play pretty much anything that comes out on high settings, some on medium. And since most games are more optimized for consoles than PC's now, there isn't really anything coming out that's going to be more demanding and require me to upgrade. Crysis 2 might push the enveloper as far as highest settings go, but since it's going to be on consoles as well it's pretty much guaranteed it will run on my PC as well, if not on the highest settings.

I'm fucking sick of people thinking you have to constantly upgrade PC hardware to game. You don't.

So tmac, do you hate PC fanboys more than PS3 ones now? Which fanboys piss you off the least hmm? I'm sorry you are too stupid to build a computer and to comtemplate playing with a keyboard and mouse but no need to insult it. If you can't handle it, why do you have to insult it? Just let it be, it doesn't do anything to you, except maybe intimidate. ; D

Tmac, just as I'd hate to see PC gaming phased out completely in favor of consoles, I'm sure you'd hate to see systems like the 360/PS3 be fully replaced in favor of the Wii. You are a hypocrite just as much as any other fanboy, stop thinking you are the "best" fanboy around.

No I still hate ps3 fanboys the most, but I do notice you're trying your best to replace them. It won't work though, as there's only 1 of you and (off the top of my head) 5 irrational ps3 fanboys that really really really annoy the shit out of me.

Bottom line, it has nothing to do with my smarts or financial situation and everything to do with me not spending that much money on a dying platform for 2 games....1 that already works on my ancient computer. I don't want to play my console games on an expensive computer, hunched over on a mouse and keyboard just for a slight graphics upgrade. It's not worth it.

@CaramelZappa:

Assuming your video card is from a year and a half ago, that statement is false. Crysis 2 will not be running very well on highest settings without DirectX 11 compliant cards. And the logic that if consoles can run it, so can your PC is invalid. A console can be optimized to the highest extent, which is harder to do for a PC game. Plus, Crytek isn't going backwards with CryEngine 3, it's supposed to push the bar higher but run a lot better than the last engine did, but that is yet to be seen. So, you will probably still need a damn good rig to run it highest at 60FPS+, but it shouldn't be as hardware unfriendly in comparison to it's predecessor to at least run.

But I agree, you don't have to upgrade every year and a half, IF you got the higher-end hardware at the time you bought your PC. It's not hard to future-proof a rig, but it's still more expensive than any console. Thing is, if you don't pay for the goods now, you end up paying more overall as time goes on. Buying a $100 card now will make you have to buy another card soon in the future, depending on your standards of course (I've seen a guy run Borderlands at 15FPS and love it).

Spending $200 will future proof you some more, and paying $300 could have you set for awhile. Of course, you can't completely predict this (as nvidia's transition into DirectX 9 showed with the FX series that sucked major ass) as each card works differently, depending on how the engines are coded. For example, for $400 you can run MAXED OUT F.E.A.R. 2 at about 180FPS with two 4890s in CrossFire, and that's possibly the best performance you can get at the moment. On Far Cry 2, nvidia's GTX 285 in SLI outperform the CF 4890's.

Basically, I'm agreeing that you don't need to upgrade every 5 seconds to have a competent rig, but there are also people that downplay spending a decent sum of cash for a rig that will last more than 15 seconds. And frankly, research helps too. Benchmarks (on games, not 3D-Mark) and making sure you know what your hardware does will ensure a long lasting gaming experience. Unless you're an enthusiast, then you'll spend $650 on an HD 5970 and OC the crap out of it.

@RageOverdose

Which statement is false? I'm saying my rig will probably be able to handle Crysis 2, though not on the highest settings. And while it's harder to optimize for PC, Crysis Warhead required lower specs for the highest settings and still looked better. It's possible they could do the same type of optimization with Crysis 2. It will probably require the latest and greatest hardware for maxing out everything, but I just want to play games, I don't think maxing everything out is that big of a deal. There's an obvious advantage in upgrading to the newest hardware, I'm just saying most of the time it isn't necessary.

Yet another trolled bunch of people.

You can buy a cheap barebone and add in some parts for a total of 500 dollars and have yourself a decent gaming rig, I just built one for a friend and he's able to play most of the current games on high graphics. (Besides a select few like GTAIV, which is just a bad port but hella fun.)

Who the fuck are you to tell me what a platform's worth to me? Shouldn't you finish learning english first before challenging me?

Besides, ps3's worth even less than that.

Tmac doesn't know two shits about PC gaming, I'm not surprised at his extremely, blatant ignorance. Let him be, I just see no reason for him to be bashing it itself. Just stick to your console gaming and maybe you will get all PC games on the lovely old consoles, whereas I can only dream of console games coming to my PC.

BTW, I was a console gamer for a long time before going back to PC gaming.

The PC only has two exclusive games worth playing and the PS3 even less than that Tmac? Its just your opinion, don't state it as a fact. As much as I currently dislike the "peasant" consoles as a current PC fanboy, the PS3 has many exclusives worth buying for many, I am even thinking of buying one again, despite my dislike of Sony and their handling of broken PS3s.

And don't you own a PS3, did you buy it just to play Blu-Ray movies?

That was just to piss Enrique off, it has more than that...not much more, but more than 2. I bought a ps3 at launch being a huge ps2 fanboy and expecting huge things, and I've been thoroughly disappointed with the system in the 3 years I've had it.

I've only bought 17 ps3 games, and 6 of them were throwaway games that came with the system (only one I could find at the time) like Full Auto 2 and Madden. On friday, in 1 day, I will have more Wii games than I've had legitimate ps3 games (meaning ones that I wanted to buy and not bundled games). Pretty sad for ps3.

@CaramelZappa:

Whoops. I took your statement the wrong way. I always see the opening "If not," with the intent of including something after, not excluding it, like "I would do this/that, if not for this/that," or, "My thing will do this, if not better than yours."

I still don't think you can get a worthwhile rig for $500, barebones or whatnot, but that's just my standards I guess.

Maybe more, perhaps you would feel inclined to buy it for 3 of your friends for some serious co-op action!

I would buy a copy for my wife and I on PC, one on xbox and yes.. if it dropped to $30 I'd try to buy friends with the game too. Diablo 2 sucked so many years from me that it's worth any amount of money compared to games like Assassin's creed 2 which was AWESOME but only took a week of my life.

Yeah really, what was their break out success on consoles? When have they even made a console game other than the lame starcraft 64.

If they made diablo on consoles, people would bitch about the graphics just like with dragon age. probably the control scheme too. It will always look better and control easier when they make the PC version in mind.

Had dragon age not been successful, I'd say it was a bad idea altogether.

While not being a heavy hitter in console development Blizzard has made their fair share of memorable games for consoles. I remember owning several Blizzard snes games in the past. RPM Racing, The Lost Vikings 1 & 2, Rock 'N' Roll Racing, and The Death and Return of Superman.

I'd gladly see them return to the ring and make some future console games. I mean it doesn't have to involve anything to do with Warcraft. Starcraft, or Diablo. I'd love to see a Lost Viking remake with online mutiplayer.

The good thing is, I can't imagine they could pull a subscription move if they put it on consoles too. Nobody would buy it, especially for live.

For one, the console ports of Warcraft 2 (PSone/Saturn), Diablo (PSone), and Starcraft (64) were not done by Blizzard alone. I believe EA did the PSone/Saturn ports, and Mass Media Inc. worked on the 64 port alongside Blizzard.

But they did make games prior to their three major series. I've never played them, but as one poster has already attested, they are memorable. I think they remade the Lost Vikings on GBA, in fact.

Tight pants.

What pants? :)

Yours or hers?

My guess is his pants.

Whose pants?

Good to know I'm not the only one who had the same image jump to mind.

love the pants

I do recall Diablo on PS1 being an enjoyable console game.

Sacred 2 did an awesome job of porting to consoles. Give it a rent and you'll see what I mean. Obviously it's better on PC, but they proved that you can do a kick ass version on the consoles as well.

I would buy this for consoles. I just sold my pc and switched to laptops. I am not going to buy a $1500 game rig for one game.

I want to play this! I just don't want to play it with low settings on my laptop.
360,ps3!

Wii and just retire!