|
On February 23 2013 05:47 Zaqwert wrote:
D3 will sell like absolute shit on consoles for two reasons.
1. Everybody who was interested has already bought it.
2. The game has a bad reputation and bad word of mouth. It sold initially due to being "Diablo" but that grace period has passed and the game must stand on it's own, not the prior games.
3. Let's face it, the PC version is bad, the console version is going to be even worse, just in terms of control and UI.
Blizzard wanting to get into the console market is smart. Them destroying one of their important franchises and pissing off their most loyal customers to do so was stupid.
They should have developed a complely new game or franchise on consoles only.
See the worth of bad word of mouth here.
|
On February 23 2013 05:51 Teddyman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 05:47 Zaqwert wrote:
D3 will sell like absolute shit on consoles for two reasons.
1. Everybody who was interested has already bought it.
2. The game has a bad reputation and bad word of mouth. It sold initially due to being "Diablo" but that grace period has passed and the game must stand on it's own, not the prior games.
3. Let's face it, the PC version is bad, the console version is going to be even worse, just in terms of control and UI.
Blizzard wanting to get into the console market is smart. Them destroying one of their important franchises and pissing off their most loyal customers to do so was stupid.
They should have developed a complely new game or franchise on consoles only. See the worth of bad word of mouth here.
Apparently not worth anything if "Aliens: Colonial Marines" is the top of that chart.
|
California sales charts > UK sales charts >_>
|
On February 23 2013 05:53 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 05:51 Teddyman wrote:On February 23 2013 05:47 Zaqwert wrote:
D3 will sell like absolute shit on consoles for two reasons.
1. Everybody who was interested has already bought it.
2. The game has a bad reputation and bad word of mouth. It sold initially due to being "Diablo" but that grace period has passed and the game must stand on it's own, not the prior games.
3. Let's face it, the PC version is bad, the console version is going to be even worse, just in terms of control and UI.
Blizzard wanting to get into the console market is smart. Them destroying one of their important franchises and pissing off their most loyal customers to do so was stupid.
They should have developed a complely new game or franchise on consoles only. See the worth of bad word of mouth here. Apparently not worth anything if "Aliens: Colonial Marines" is the top of that chart.
lol UK sales chart.
|
This is not a very good idea. They're bound to make money off it no doubt, but I feel like they should just use the time and effort on an expansion for D3 instead.
OT but, there was a thread about a streamer who uses a console controller to play his ladder games and apparently blizz expressed interest in what his setup was. I wouldn't be surprised if they ever decided to bring sc2 over to the consoles too (sc64 anyone?).
|
I have a feeling that the xbox/Skyrim holiday bundle sold well. I'm betting this is going to be a PS exclusive (strategic partnership). Sony and Blizzard are feeling the market pressure from MS and Bethesda. TESO is probably also scaring the shit out of Blizz right now.
The game would actually probably be more fun on a console, but it sounds like PoE is considering PS4 as well anyway.
|
On February 23 2013 05:35 Teddyman wrote:
OK here are the extremely simple refutations to the 4chan post.
4 players: very simple to make a 6 player game and then just limit it to 4 on console
No open world to keep people on the same screen: they have to solve the (non-)problem of people walking off screen anyway. Just make it jump back to splitscreen if people are not close. Lego LOTR does the same.
No skill points or number crunching: plenty of console games have skill points. D1/D2 never had any complicated number crunching.
"4-5 skills on your bar at once": it's not 4-5, it's 6. Either way you could make a normal skill system and just have option to bind 6 of them. I think Mass Effect 2 on console did the same. D1 was based on this, unlimited skills but bind only 4. Wait, 4 is less than 6??
No runes/"complicated shit": not seeing how the fun or lack thereof is platform dependent in any way.
Can't make game name: standard bnet2 lack-of-feature.
Achievements: every game has them.
Passive skills: D2 had them.
No VOIP: Nobody uses their VOIP in any of the other titles.
- 4 Players games - Performance on PS3 may be limited to around 4 players given the graphics and physics engine of D3.
Remember how Diablo 2 had 8 players? There is no reason why this game is limited to 4 players besides performance and we all know a PC can handle the extra players.
- Why waste time making the game jump to 4 player split screens when you can just make a linear map. This relates to the 4 player cap. Can you imagine the pain of waiting for everyone to be on your screen in a 8 player game like D2.
- "D1/D2 never had any complicated number crunching" - Based on that statement alone your statement is completely wrong.
- 6 skills is perfect for a console controller.
- Bnet 2.0 was designed with console in mind
- Achievements - mostly console games have them. I drop a tear when I think about what could have been, if they had taken the time to make all these useless achievements with pretty graphics and spent it on improving the items... *tear*
|
On February 23 2013 19:06 fearus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 05:35 Teddyman wrote:
OK here are the extremely simple refutations to the 4chan post.
4 players: very simple to make a 6 player game and then just limit it to 4 on console
No open world to keep people on the same screen: they have to solve the (non-)problem of people walking off screen anyway. Just make it jump back to splitscreen if people are not close. Lego LOTR does the same.
No skill points or number crunching: plenty of console games have skill points. D1/D2 never had any complicated number crunching.
"4-5 skills on your bar at once": it's not 4-5, it's 6. Either way you could make a normal skill system and just have option to bind 6 of them. I think Mass Effect 2 on console did the same. D1 was based on this, unlimited skills but bind only 4. Wait, 4 is less than 6??
No runes/"complicated shit": not seeing how the fun or lack thereof is platform dependent in any way.
Can't make game name: standard bnet2 lack-of-feature.
Achievements: every game has them.
Passive skills: D2 had them.
No VOIP: Nobody uses their VOIP in any of the other titles. - 4 Players games - Performance on PS3 may be limited to around 4 players given the graphics and physics engine of D3. Remember how Diablo 2 had 8 players? There is no reason why this game is limited to 4 players besides performance and we all know a PC can handle the extra players. - Why waste time making the game jump to 4 player split screens when you can just make a linear map. This relates to the 4 player cap. Can you imagine the pain of waiting for everyone to be on your screen in a 8 player game like D2. - "D1/D2 never had any complicated number crunching" - Based on that statement alone your statement is completely wrong. - 6 skills is perfect for a console controller. - Bnet 2.0 was designed with console in mind - Achievements - mostly console games have them. I drop a tear when I think about what could have been, if they had taken the time to make all these useless achievements with pretty graphics and spent it on improving the items... *tear*
Your points make absolutely no sense.
1) I explicitly said it was trivial to limit a game to 4 players if you already made it work with 6 or 8.
2) Even if the map is linear (which is definitely isn't atm) you are able to walk off in different directions or just take different waypoints.
3) Can you explain what is so complicated in these games? If they came out today, everything would be figured out in 2 weeks.
4) Yes, as I said you could very well make any ARPG work on a controller by allowing you to bind 6 skills out of any number available.
5) Bnet 2.0 is not even consistent across different games. The UI is totally different in WoW, SC2 and D3. Most of the common functionality (cross game friends lists/chat) probably won't even make it to console since PSN will handle those tasks.
6) It's not mostly console games, it's almost every title on steam, and all of Blizzard's titles since WotLK.
|
On February 23 2013 16:39 screamingpalm wrote:
I have a feeling that the xbox/Skyrim holiday bundle sold well. I'm betting this is going to be a PS exclusive (strategic partnership). Sony and Blizzard are feeling the market pressure from MS and Bethesda. TESO is probably also scaring the shit out of Blizz right now.
The game would actually probably be more fun on a console, but it sounds like PoE is considering PS4 as well anyway.
I think it would be a timed exclusive, after which it would release on the xbox too. Metzen and some other guy from blizzard appeared on a show on gametrailers, and there when the host asked them about the xbox, he seemed to struggle for a bit, and then just said something like "we're here to talk about the sony announcement so lets talk about that today". So it looks like a timed exclusive. Besides activision say no to more customers :D
|
Probably one of the reasons we don't have a 360 version also is because of Live policies. Because D3 needs to be constantly patched, this can cause some problems with MS being anal with that.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 23 2013 00:28 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 23:59 oneofthem wrote:
having 6 active skill slots isn't hte only aspect of the game people focus on though. stuff like 4 member party size, nonopen world, lack of custom games and other social aspects of bnet etc Having 4 party members was to reduce plasma soup. Having a nonopen world was a really bad design choice. The quest lobby, which puts the game on a railway track is also a needlessly restrictive and bad design choice. But I don't see how you can blame consoles for it. Related to that is not being able to name games (is this what you mean by no custom games?), this isn't necessarily bad, e.g. in WC3 the only information people conveyed in the title is game mode, which is automatic in SC2, so it's OK. But in D2 people tagged their games for farming, trading, PvP, etc, that's not possible in D3, so it's bad that this feature is missing. On B.net having terrible social features, I agree with you. We can blame that on Xbox Live and B.net 2.0 lead designer, Greg Canessa. That's probably the only thing out of the list that can be directly blamed on consoles.
in other words, limiting the game to 4 players would enable MORE plasma soup. plasma soup kind of sells
the rest of it, take it as a whole, and it's pretty obvious that it was cut up for the lowest common denominator. slash and hack with no underlying mechanics.
|
Seriously who plays consoles? After my ps3 and xbox elite broke after buying it within a year I just gave up in general as a consumer. It's really sad that my NES still works compared to these.
|
On February 24 2013 05:18 TriO wrote:
Seriously who plays consoles? After my ps3 and xbox elite broke after buying it within a year I just gave up in general as a consumer. It's really sad that my NES still works compared to these.
Well there is definitely a huge install base for the 360 and ps3, there is no denying that. I'm sure many of them only game on consoles and are completely oblivious to what goes on in the pc gaming realm, and I imagine these are the potential customers Blizzard is hoping to harness with D3. I feel sorry for them if they buy into it though lol.
|
Despite the general dislike of d3 on these forums, I thought it was a good game and worth the money I put down on it. As for a nostalgia fix, I'll agree, it just isn't that.
For the actual topic, there is no way I would purchase the console version even if I did own a gaystation (no offense but I had traumatizing experiences with PS2) and even if they added a new class or some other gimmick to attract PC version owners. The last time I bought something that was, first and foremost, a PC exclusive for a console was Starcraft 64 and we all know how that ended up. For the younger peeps out there, It was basically playing Brood War with the attack button, three control groups and hooked up to a hand carved wood modem. I'm sure that the new gen system will be able to handle it perfectly fine but I just don't envy the PS players who are being introduced to it in that format.
Now if Blizzard would implement some way to change the controller layout then it won't be so bad but most companies only give you a handful of presets such as southpaw. Basically, all I'm saying is that a keyboard and mouse are way more versatile for these kind of games. Congratulations to little Ralphie who will sucker his parents into letting him slay demons in between math and science homework though. :D
|
More experienced gamers would have spotten the Playstation FOTM action title feel to D3 on first play, I know I did anyway so its not a huge surprise to me that its going console. Not hatin though, unlike some others I do not mind a bash on a console.
|
I'm not a big console gamer, but have to admit that localized multiplayer without splitscreen sounds enticing. Just wish it was a different game doing it lol.
|
On February 24 2013 05:18 TriO wrote:
Seriously who plays consoles? After my ps3 and xbox elite broke after buying it within a year I just gave up in general as a consumer. It's really sad that my NES still works compared to these.
If no one played on a console then they wouldn't be releasing the PS4 and the new Xbox. The console community is much larger than the PC gaming community, which would explain how many developers put their effort into the console community first and then the PC. Even then the PC community often get half ass ports or a direct console port. Companies like Ubisoft treat PC gamers like second rate citizens and thieves. It is good that the next generation consoles are coming since the latest PC hardware components will be put to better use and not be held back because of older hardware that the PS3 and 360 uses.
|
On February 23 2013 16:39 screamingpalm wrote:
I have a feeling that the xbox/Skyrim holiday bundle sold well. I'm betting this is going to be a PS exclusive (strategic partnership). Sony and Blizzard are feeling the market pressure from MS and Bethesda. TESO is probably also scaring the shit out of Blizz right now.
The game would actually probably be more fun on a console, but it sounds like PoE is considering PS4 as well anyway.
Like any other MMO that blizzard was supposed to be scared of, nothing happened. TES is going to be no different.
|
On February 24 2013 16:42 Mysticesper wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 16:39 screamingpalm wrote:
I have a feeling that the xbox/Skyrim holiday bundle sold well. I'm betting this is going to be a PS exclusive (strategic partnership). Sony and Blizzard are feeling the market pressure from MS and Bethesda. TESO is probably also scaring the shit out of Blizz right now.
The game would actually probably be more fun on a console, but it sounds like PoE is considering PS4 as well anyway. Like any other MMO that blizzard was supposed to be scared of, nothing happened. TES is going to be no different.
It depends on if Bethesda has realized players want something other than just another WoW clone in a different setting. I'm hoping it's good because I love TES games, and the prospect of visiting Morrowind again with modern graphics has me very interested.
|
I lost faith in Blizzard on StarCraft 2's release because the singleplayer campaign was really underwhelming compared to WC3 or even BW, and the multiplayer was lacking so many functions. The game should push the way forward, NOT go backwards or trying to settle with the basic amount of features the first one had. The units were boring, I didn't feel it was a balanced game, etc....
Diablo 3 was just nail in the coffin for me. I haven't enjoyed a Blizzard game that much since TBC of WoW. The glory days are over and now they're really just another average to below average dev IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
