Release 2012 because PS3?

General Discussion
2012 because making Diablo III for consoles?
no now stop asking. seriously.
Delay after delay is nothing new, you should have expected it. The only thing you can blame consoles for without a doubt is the 2002 graphics D3 uses.
Nope. Console versions, if they do in fact get made, will not appear any time next year. It's probably a safe bet.
09/24/2011 05:36 PMPosted by Cyrus
The only thing you can blame consoles for without a doubt is the 2002 graphics D3 uses.
Because a PC game can't be scaled down graphically to fit on a console a la Battlefield 3? I mean, it's already going to have to be. I doubt the current gen consoles could run the game on max as it is.
If they were going to release it for the PS3 we would know about it. They've shown interest in a console port, but ultimately it's an undertaking in and of itself, and it's completely extraneous to the game development in general.

If it does get ported to the console(s), it will be well after the game releases for the PC.
seriously, some people seem to be clueless and they post questions without searching or doing any research. I guess that's what you get with the internet lol.

The answer is no since they mentioned that console version (f they do release one) would be after the PC version and not along side it.
We don't know
i'm not trolling or something like that. I just make a question.
09/24/2011 05:42 PMPosted by Cadmo
i'm not trolling or something like that. I just make a question.


i only have a problem with the fact so many people are jumping to that conclusion and some are even stating it is fact, without giving it an ounce of thought. its been well known for a long time that diablo will make it to consoles eventually and blizzard is even still hiring console people to help get it ported, its also been common knowledge that it will not happen until long after release, in fact maybe not even before the first expansion. so knowingg that you can easily know that that is not why they pushed it back.
09/24/2011 05:37 PMPosted by Static
I doubt the current gen consoles could run the game on max as it is.

...... Thanks for that information Captain Obvious. Allow me to be Captain Obvious for you this time: Games are still severely dumbed down so when they're being ported to consoles it will be an easier process. Consoles don't max out their own games, most run at 30fps or lower with no AA, AF or vsync all at a low res.

Consoles use 960x540, 1024x576 and 1280x720. But all are internally stretched to 1280x720 so they lie and call all 3 720p. Even if was the exact same thing on a PC that it is on a console it would take several times the power on a PC due to the 1920x1080 to 2560x1600 resolutions used.
Blizzard has never released a game on time. At least one delay is expected for every game.
09/24/2011 05:36 PMPosted by Cyrus
Delay after delay is nothing new, you should have expected it. The only thing you can blame consoles for without a doubt is the 2002 graphics D3 uses.


You mean 2004-2010 graphics? They aren't running the old directx 9.0 version.
09/24/2011 05:48 PMPosted by Cyrus
I doubt the current gen consoles could run the game on max as it is.

...... Thanks for that information Captain Obvious. Allow me to be Captain Obvious for you this time: Games are still severely dumbed down so when they go to consoles it will be an easier process.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7VAhzPcZ-s
09/24/2011 05:53 PMPosted by Icey
You mean 2004-2010 graphics? They aren't running the old directx 9.0 version.

I didn't know it's only DX10+ for PC. Are you sure about that? Regardless there are still games from that time with that level of graphics... and console GPUs are DX9.
09/24/2011 05:48 PMPosted by Cyrus
I doubt the current gen consoles could run the game on max as it is.

...... Thanks for that information Captain Obvious. Allow me to be Captain Obvious for you this time: Games are still severely dumbed down so when they're being ported to consoles it will be an easier process. Consoles don't max out their own games, most run at 30fps or lower with no AA, AF or vsync all at a low res.

Consoles use 960x540, 1024x576 and 1280x720. But all are internally stretched to 1280x720 so they lie and call all 3 720p. Even if was the exact same thing on a PC that it is on a console it would take several times the power on a PC due to the 1920x1080 to 2560x1600 resolutions used.


The look of Diablo 3 has exactly 0 to do with development for consoles. Blizzard has always had a policy to reach the widest audience as possible by allowing their games to be scaleable across many different qualities of PCs. Don't go around blaming Diablo 3's accessibility on consoles.
RMAH nothing more nothing less!
09/24/2011 05:48 PMPosted by Cyrus
I doubt the current gen consoles could run the game on max as it is.

...... Thanks for that information Captain Obvious. Allow me to be Captain Obvious for you this time: Games are still severely dumbed down so when they're being ported to consoles it will be an easier process. Consoles don't max out their own games, most run at 30fps or lower with no AA, AF or vsync all at a low res.

Consoles use 960x540, 1024x576 and 1280x720. But all are internally stretched to 1280x720 so they lie and call all 3 720p. Even if was the exact same thing on a PC that it is on a console it would take several times the power on a PC due to the 1920x1080 to 2560x1600 resolutions used.
Oh, my mistake. My Captain Obvious statement seemed necessary with your weird declaration that consoles were somehow to blame for the (in your opinion) dated appearance of the PC graphics. I must have misinterpreted you there. Would you care to clarify?
09/24/2011 05:59 PMPosted by Cyrus
You mean 2004-2010 graphics? They aren't running the old directx 9.0 version.

I didn't know it's only DX10+ for PC. Are you sure about that? Regardless there are still games from that time with that level of graphics... and console GPUs are DX9.


Just because something says DX9 or DX10, doesn't mean that's the only version and it stays that old, DX9 has gone through a number of iterations, you go through 9.0 to 9.0a. to 9.0b, 9.0c, then they went onto monthly updates that have kept up till middle of 2010, well past the first release of DirectX 10.

Sure it'll be missing things from DX10 & 11, but it's a bit unfair to call it 2002 graphics, which insinuates that its old and significantly inferior. Microsoft has kept it fresh for a good reason.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum