Blizzard investigating Diablo for consoles

The Diablo is in the details. Blizzard Entertainment CEO Mike Morhaime brought up Diablo for consoles at DICE late yesterday. It's a subject that's received plenty of industry chatter, but the closest we'd previously gotten to it happening (since the 1998 release of the first Diablo for PlayStation) was a report late last year that the company was "exploring a Diablo-related concept for consoles."

The story is too old to be commented.
NYC_Gamer2865d ago

this would be great for us gamers and blizzard by expanding.

eggbert2865d ago

unless consoles gimp the game in any way.

NYC_Gamer2865d ago (Edited 2865d ago )

i'm sure blizzard wouldn't gimp any version of the game.

evrfighter2865d ago (Edited 2865d ago )

Hardware limitations. They exist. Just because your in denial about it doesn't make it not true.

Right, because developers make games for people who don't plan on buying games. That's what the low end market consists of.

Persistantthug2865d ago

Low end PC's and laptops have limitations too.

In fact, Consoles are more powerful than those.

So when you say or imply Consoles are the lowest powered machines for this generations gaming, that's a fallacy........PC's are.

ProjectVulcan2865d ago (Edited 2865d ago )

Consoles ARE the lowest powered machines this this "Generation" now although PC does not run in generations. Minimum specs for most full retail games you will see are Geforce 7900/Radeon X1800. These are really common minimum specs. Why? They are basically the equivalent to the consoles.

Anything faster than that, i.e faster than the minimum stated specs is faster than the consoles. If you want to run a modern game at the very least you have something equivalent to console but really everyone has something faster if they game on PC now.

Even something low end like a radeon 5550 is technically superior to either GPU inside 360 and PS3.

Persistantthug2865d ago (Edited 2865d ago )

Batman: Arkham Asylum
Processor: Pentium 4 @ 3 GHz / AMD Athlon64 3000+
Memory: 1 Gb
Hard Drive: 9 Gb free
Video Memory: 256 Mb
Video Card: nVidia GeForce 6600 / ATI Radeon X1300
Sound Card: DirectX Compatible
DirectX: 9.0c

My PS3 is more a powerful game machine than the computer with those specs for that 2009 game.

There's another flaw in your reasoning....Consoles, especially the PS3 doesn't just only use its GPU for graphics processing....their CPU's also do that.

In the case of the PS3, there is no CPU on the market, no AMD or i7 that can graphics process (FLOPS) better than the CELL PROCESSOR.

Long story short, Console architecture and PC architecture is not an apples to apples comparison as you just tried to do.

kancerkid2865d ago

If TOrchlight can come to consoles...

ProjectVulcan2865d ago (Edited 2865d ago )

Its not a flawed premise. I didnt say ALL games have the minimum specs i stated, I said they are common minimum specs and you will find them on many, many titles. Many ported from console but some not.

Quoting one game at me hardly qualifies as a rebuttal, because the very nature of PC gaming means specs differ game to game and engine to engine. They are usually set by the developer. In fact quoting LOWER specs than what i wrote means that the game must be optimised fairly well for PC to experience similar performance as the consoles. Its in favour of MY argument, not yours.

My point still stands up when you look across the general landscape.

Your point also about CPU doing graphics work is also flawed, because realistically a more powerful GPU will always be a lot better, faster, for specialised graphics work than a CPU design even such as that like the cell. The likes of killzone 3 and uncharted 2 STILL only run in 720p and 30 frames a second, lets not forget this. Something like a Radeon 5550 is considerably faster than the crippled NV47 7800 GPU inside PS3, cell can only make up for so much and generally it doesnt even manage that for most games because they are built for 360 and ported across or built with middleware. The only games that really have proper SPE utilisation on PS3 are PS3 exclusives but even THEN not every exclusive. Have you seen demons souls or the PS3 version of Naruto running on a jtagged 360 perfectly? I have.

Fact of the matter is anyone with an old Athlon and a Geforce 7900GTX has a machine that is more powerful than the consoles. That hardware is five years old. Anyone that really games on PC would have something better. Even slightly better than those specs makes it considerably more powerful than the consoles.

No one said it was apples to apples but you can draw a line across in hardware comparison because what is inside 360 and PS3 is fixed, and essentially derived from consumer PC technology. Albeit 5 years+ old.

Persistantthug2865d ago (Edited 2865d ago )

Assassins’s Creed II

* Operating system : Windows XP SP3, Windows Vista, Windows 7
* Processor : Core 2 Duo Intel 1.8 Ghz / AMD Athlon X2 64 2.4 GHz
* Video card: 256 MB Video Memory dengan Shader model 3.0 (NVIDIA GeForce 7800 / ATI Radeon X1950)
* Memory: 1.5 GB (Windows XP), 2 GB (Windows Vista dan Windows 7) of RAM
* Hard drive: 8 GB

This late 2009 game runs BETTER on my PS3 and XBOX 360 than on the DUAL CORE PC with these specs....(You'll notice the 7800 GPU along with the Dual core).

And don't tell me no...because I've seen it.

If I had more bubbles, I could do this all day.
But since I'm out of take care, vulcanproject. :)

Edit...but my point stands....Low powered PC's and laptops that play this generations games are the least common denominator....not the HD consoles.

ProjectVulcan2865d ago (Edited 2865d ago )

Assassins creed 2 Pc. Those video cards are in the ballpark i quoted. Thus its clearly a console port. Am i claiming that this is a universal rule? Of course not, merely making a point that even very PC hardware can be a match for the consoles.

On PS3 It runs 1280 x 720 with texture blur QAA filter and 20-30 frames a second, with screen tearing. I know that it will run well with dated hardware like that on PC with equivalent settings...

I even know that you can run it with good DX9 settings on a Radeon 5550 in 1080p and get similar to console performance!

This is because the consoles still only run most games 1280 x 720 (or lower!) and 25-30 frames a second. By even PC standards of 2005, its a very low resolution and a slow framerate. As soon as you start running PC games over 30 frames a second @ say 1280 x 1024 (the most common PC res) you clearly are outperforming the consoles drastically, pushing 50 percent more resolution....

The lowest common denominator is definitely now the consoles for most modern games simply because of the crossover and amount of ports. However even besides this, the beauty of PC is that older hardware might support lower than console settings. This is despite the fact Pc gamers would not commonly be running hardware that is older than the consoles. That is how aged they are.

Incipio2865d ago (Edited 2865d ago )

lol there goes vulcanproject directly comparing consoles with little to no OS overhead with PCs that have full OS overhead and barely any optimized code.

Consoles are strictly designed for throughput and performance.

Directly comparing GPU to GPU from console to PC is extremely naive when wanting to determine whether a game will be "gimped" or not.

I'm pretty confident that Naughty Dog and Guerrilla Games would love to have a nice little chat with you.

ProjectVulcan2864d ago (Edited 2864d ago )

Directly comparing? Nope, wrong as usual. Roughly comparing.

Everyone knows that console hardware is created mainly for one thing and as such is a stripped down system, streamlined and optimised for games.

Nevertheless, brute force wins 9 times out of 10. It just does. In the world of gaming systems brute force and power of PC hardware overwhelms console hardware. Sure if a game is poorly optimised for PC hardware then the consoles will edge it with similar specs but as i pointed out PC hardware always advances. Modest PC hardware released 12-18 months after the consoles usually has no problems whatsoever obliterating console performance, even on unoptimised titles. Brute force wins.

You can talk to those developers and they'll tell you that if they properly ported their games onto a PC, they would run with better effects on a low end PC machine. Uncharted 2 looks great for what it is, a console game, but even that does not have anisotropic filtering. Something taken for granted in PC games for nearly a decade now.

They'll point out that they do their best with 720p, 30 frames a second and a 256mb framebuffer but they could do better with a half decent X86 CPU and a five year old 512mb X1900XTX. Regardless of OS overhead.

If you run Crysis warhead on an X19 series in 720p on playable settings generally you'll get image quality at the very least as good as but probably better than every console game still.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 2864d ago
chak_2865d ago


Hack and slack are fast, really fast. It's nervous, you have many shortcuts and you have to be quite precise.

I don't think "fast" and "pad" work much together.

blizzard might prove me wrong, but for now I don't see diablo on console, unless they make it in some king of action RPG 3rd person or something

dredgewalker2865d ago

The PS2 did have Baldur's Gate and it's very similar to Diablo. I didn't have much of a problem adjusting to the controls.

chak_2865d ago (Edited 2865d ago )

I didn't get to play it, so I get it out of my rear... but it wasn't a click fest like diablo 2 was right?

It's something so compulsive you would break your pad.

Persistantthug2865d ago (Edited 2865d ago )

There's nothing "technical achieving" about doing isometric overhead games.

Heck...Torchlight is going to XBOX 360 as a mere download.

edit in...

Since Controls are a bit of a question mark to you, These types of games play like Gauntlet...remember that one? :)

dredgewalker2865d ago

Actually it was a lot like Diablo 2 and the ds controller handled the job pretty well. But I'm still hoping for mouse and keyboard support if they ever decide to make a port.

Incipio2865d ago (Edited 2865d ago )

lol...chak_....Diablo IS an isometric, 3rd-person action-rpg.

I'm pretty sure spells and such could be mapped to face buttons, while right and left triggers could be mapped to the left and right hands of your character. the top two shoulder buttons could then be mapped to switching weapon sets.

The right stick could act as a context-senstive target selector used to select anything on the screen ranging from dropped items to NPCs to monsters to interactive objects. Once selected with the right stick, you can then choose an action (face button for magic or hit a trigger and your character will run up and melee or interact)

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2865d ago
dredgewalker2865d ago

They should also consider Starcraft 2 on consoles, with mouse and keyboard support of course.

lelo2play2865d ago

Yep... and i hope they don't delay the PC release because of a console version.

Rage_S902864d ago

strangely enough i think thats the reason its not coming this year

a08andan2865d ago

Is anyone surprised by this? They will do everything that might bring in some extra $ :P

dredgewalker2865d ago

After Activision killing off some of its console franchises, they're gonna need something else to milk.

Ace_19752865d ago (Edited 2865d ago )

Blizzard if you are reading this, do it. Make Diablo 3 for 360/PS3. I used to play Diablo 2 with a good friend and we always had issues trying to join the same game. I always wanted to be able to play him over Xbox live using voice chat and easy game joining. I played Diablo 2 for years on PC and still never got my head around all the different keyboard commands to text people in other games and what not. So for all us people who have quit PC gaming do it please. I don't want to have to buy a new PC to play Diablo 3.

I am a console gamer, and do not want to change.

kevnb2865d ago

Bs diablo 2 is easy toplay and has a much better online system than either console.

Show all comments (39)
The story is too old to be commented.