Diablo 3 delayed into early 2012; beta extended

It's rarely surprising, but always slightly upsetting, when Blizzard delays a game, as has just happened to Diablo 3. The index finder workout game is now slated to launch in "early 2012."

52

Though a lucky few got to start playing Diablo III this week when beta invites began going out, the unlucky masses not in the beta will have to wait even longer. Blizzard announced this morning that the clicktastic action-RPG has been delayed into "early 2012."

"While this news might not be a complete surprise, I know that many of you were hopeful that Diablo III would ship this year. We were too," Blizzard president Mike Morhaime explained in the announcement. Blizzard has said since February that it hoped to launch in 2011, but never committed to it.

"However, this week we pulled together people from all of the teams involved with the game to decide whether we felt it would be ready before the end of December, and we grudgingly came to the conclusion that it would not."

"Ultimately, we feel that to deliver an awesome Diablo sequel that lives up to our expectations and yours as well, we should take a little more time and add further polish to a few different elements of the game," he said.

The closed beta test will be extended accordingly, and Blizzard intends to invite more people than originally planned. That's some small consolation, at least. If you want a shot at getting into the beta, which you surely do, be certain you've opted-in through your Battle.net profile.

If you're still waiting by your inbox for an invite to land, you can satisfy your loot lust a little with the thrilling item database, which includes all of Diablo III's magic, rare, legendary and set items.

From The Chatty
  • reply
    September 23, 2011 6:30 AM

    Alice O'Connor posted a new article, Diablo 3 delayed into early 2012; beta extended.

    It's rarely surprising, but always slightly upsetting, when Blizzard delays a game, as has just happened to Diablo 3. The index finder workout game is now slated to launch in "early 2012."

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 6:31 AM

      if there was ever an appropriate 'KHAAAAN' reaction, it'd be now

      • reply
        September 23, 2011 6:36 AM

        Only if the event that prompted it came as a surprise. Which this is not. :(

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 6:32 AM

      expected, but still :(

      • reply
        September 23, 2011 6:33 AM

        expected? the game looks solid as can be!

        • reply
          September 23, 2011 6:54 AM

          i just meant from my personal expectation that it would not be coming out in 2011, even given how solid the beta is

          • reply
            September 23, 2011 6:56 AM

            why are you such a negative nancy that ruins the world for the rest of us

            • reply
              September 23, 2011 12:52 PM

              He's hoping it comes out in 2012 instead of 2013.

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 6:33 AM

      I can't wait to find my index!

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 6:36 AM

      rip mwasher

      9/23/2011 - Never Forget

      • reply
        September 23, 2011 6:38 AM

        I wish someone would find him and get a record the reaction on the youtubes

        • reply
          September 23, 2011 6:44 AM

          At first I was a little :( and then a little :| and then I remembered Dark Souls comes out in less than 2 weeks so now I'm more like :)

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 6:49 AM

      I never even kind of thought we'd see this in 2011.

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 6:49 AM

      Good news for Torchlight 2 AMIRITE?

      • reply
        September 23, 2011 6:56 AM

        This is actually the first thing I thought.

        • reply
          September 23, 2011 7:13 AM

          it actually did make me kinda happy. I'm looking forward to TL2

      • reply
        September 23, 2011 7:23 AM

        I'm actually more interested in Torchlight 2 than Diablo 3, to be honest.

        • reply
          September 23, 2011 7:40 AM

          me too really.....$20 and a much larger world plus multiplayer, and I'm assuming the same save system. Solid.

      • reply
        September 23, 2011 8:02 AM

        Offline gaming... that you can pause!

        That should be their first bullet point.

        • reply
          September 23, 2011 9:16 AM

          [deleted]

          • reply
            September 23, 2011 9:29 AM

            Die, or die not, there is no pause. But no, really, there isn't. There IS an infinite town-portal item that takes 10 seconds to cast.

            Alternately, I'm told you can run for about 5 seconds back into a cleared area and mobs wont chase you.

            • reply
              September 23, 2011 12:34 PM

              I am fine with this, Demon's Souls taught me how to hide like a coward if/or I needed a bathroom break/phone call/someone coming to the door.

            • Zek legacy 10 years
              reply
              September 23, 2011 12:55 PM

              It's possible there will be a pause option, eventually if not at release. SC2 has one for multiplayer games.

              • reply
                September 23, 2011 1:33 PM

                Sure, but SC2 multi is very unforgiving for any sort of AFK or inattentiveness, and it really needs a pause.

                D3 multi or SP you can just take a few steps back and/or town-portal if you need to step away for a bit.

                I'm not saying people wouldn't appreciate a pause option on top of that, it's just less critical than pausing in SC2 since there's no way of safely stepping out of the action in SC2.

      • reply
        September 23, 2011 8:33 AM

        Yes! :D

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 6:50 AM

      Excellent. All the more time to find a new ISP. Sucks for the rest of you who already have solid ISPs though.

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 6:51 AM

      Just means I can wait until next year to use my precious vacation time.

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 6:52 AM

      Good, I have too much to play this holiday season as it is.

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 6:53 AM

      good because i can live my life normally for that much longer

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 6:54 AM

      [deleted]

      • reply
        September 23, 2011 7:01 AM

        Hopefully it comes out on PS3 a week early

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 7:24 AM

      CONSOLE'D

      • reply
        September 23, 2011 7:35 AM

        This is what I'm thinking, I mean first they say no mods, then always online drm, perfect for a console, will require an xbox live gold account because you'll definitely want to use the multiplayer, and now they say how well it works with a controller? Well no shit, so did gauntlet legends, which was exactly what a friend of mine, who is older and never played pc games since he was in the marines years ago, said.

        • reply
          September 23, 2011 10:46 AM

          Actually, no console game has required "always-online" as far as I know.

          • reply
            September 23, 2011 2:22 PM

            Did BF1943 have any SP component? It's an XBL Arcade game, I dunno if that would count.

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 7:26 AM

      PREORDER CANCELELED

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 7:30 AM

      Beta extended, what's the point? The Beta is ultrapolished; I have seen 1 bug, a faulty DPS reading on an item.

      Maybe it means they'll make it nearly open (or even open) to stress test Battle Net, which is the only part that needs it.

      • reply
        September 23, 2011 8:13 AM

        I still really wonder about one thing that the beta doesn't touch on.

        The rune system replacing skill points. Sure, you get cool stuff unlocking almost every level up to 30, but then after that the only way to improve your skills will be to find better runes. Chances are you'll find better runes... fairly often? But they'll be different colors, so your favorite triple disintegration beam attack is now a disintegration sphere that circles you and provides melee retaliation (or whatever) that totally changes the skill, which up to this point was your primary attack.

        There's only 7 levels of runes, and the 7th level is only available in Inferno difficulty, so that leaves 6 levels of runes for the 3 other difficulty levels, so that's level 1 and 2 runes in normal, level 3 and 4 in nightmare, and level 5 and 6 in Hell, so after level 30 when all your skills and slots have finished unlocking, I think character progression is going to feel incredibly slow.

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 7:34 AM

      Has anyone read that article from rock paper shotgun about the Diablo III DRM? http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/09/22/how-diablo-iiis-drm-will-affect-you/
      Seems like a totally fucked up system for single player I hope it gets fixed or changed somehow.

      • reply
        September 23, 2011 7:36 AM

        yea it sucks but they stated its a completely online game, SP is just an instance you can't invite anyone into. Its horrible but the expectation they set

        • reply
          September 23, 2011 7:42 AM

          Just seems very messed up, I still want the game for sure but there has to be a better way to handle the SP "instance" then this... one would think.

          • reply
            September 23, 2011 7:46 AM

            I believe part of the reason is to make all monster/item code server side, so that people cannot reverse engineer battle.net as easily. But I think thats a huge error on their part and will merely delay the onset of hacked servers but not prevent them.

            • reply
              September 23, 2011 8:00 AM

              Yeah it does kinda make sense from an item/drop standpoint.

            • reply
              September 23, 2011 10:48 AM

              hacked servers are much less of a concern than dupes/hacks on the legit servers

            • reply
              September 23, 2011 10:49 AM

              I don't think it's anti-piracy, "hacked servers" won't affect anyone playing on Battle.net servers. So pirates can have their "hacked" servers that don't fully replicate the real servers, and everyone else can have secure servers (with RMAH :P).

              • reply
                September 23, 2011 10:50 AM

                or rather, I don't think anti-piracy is why Blizzard made it "online-only".

        • reply
          September 23, 2011 8:50 AM

          Side note: The bits I've read imply that you can open up your SP game to be MP without restarting/re-hosting.

          Any beta players able to confirm/deny?

          • reply
            September 23, 2011 8:59 AM

            makes sense, there really is no SP. You just start a private game and dont invite anyone.

            • Zek legacy 10 years
              reply
              September 23, 2011 11:11 AM

              Yeah, this is more or less the same as Closed B.Net from D2. They just removed the other options.

        • reply
          September 23, 2011 11:14 AM

          That's basically how I played D2 single-player. The drops were better on the ladder anyway.

      • reply
        September 23, 2011 8:48 AM

        Yeah, but I think its a bit sensational coming from RPS. First off, he calls it "DRM" when that's maybe 1/3 of Blizzard's motivation for online-only. Secondly, his disconnect and data loss was almost certainly due to the beta server being taken down, but that's probably the most shocking part of his article. He didn't seem inclined to verify whether that is something we should be concerned about after its released.

        The online-only bit is still worth bringing up to people who were unaware of it before, despite being a dead-horse for anyone following D3 closely. But that's tied to the lack of pause and he treats it like a unique surprise, but no-pause is fairly normal for online-only multiplayer games.

        The big deal here is that existing fans don't view the Diablo franchise as an online-only multiplayer game that also permits soloing. Many fans like their demon hacking and loot whoring during brief snippets of time, regardless of internet access, and whether they might be interrupted at a moments notice.

        I'd be more interested to see an article discussing the long-term impact of this online-only change will have on the Diablo community, rather than yet another knee-jerk bit.

        • reply
          September 23, 2011 2:28 PM

          I can refute what you said with this: I've never played Diablo, I want to play this, and I need to pause the game. If I can't pause it, and if I can't save it and quit, and if I can't idle, then I can't play it.

          • reply
            September 23, 2011 3:05 PM

            I'm responding to the incredulity people are expressing over these online-only issues with Diablo 3 in particular.

            There are many, many games that do not feature pause or insta-save/quit, and I took it as a given that there are people from whom this is a deal-breaker regardless of franchise.

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 8:02 AM

      Oh good, time to beat Skyrim first.

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 8:13 AM

      I'd just be happy to see it come out by 2013, given Blizzard's long-standing history of delayed releases. Nevertheless, the polish on any of Blizzard's games always blow any competition out of the water and for that I will always wait patiently (in extreme anticipation)

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 8:19 AM

      Well fuck

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 9:01 AM

      Yeah, the switch from isometric view to first person is going to set them back some.

      • reply
        September 23, 2011 12:38 PM

        And what a terrible decision it was!

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 9:59 AM

      anyone hear from DM7 I'm worried.

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 10:11 AM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 10:16 AM

      Oh Blizzard, don't ever change. I will be right here waiting for you..

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 10:17 AM

      they didn't push this back because Old Republic pushed back their date to 2012 too did they?

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 10:24 AM

      I am thinking that Blizzard is having second thoughts about this game competing with the likes of Skyrim and BF3 and so chose a less crowded week to release to at least get some exposure.

      • reply
        September 23, 2011 10:30 AM

        more like skyrim and BF3 are breathing a sigh of relief.

      • reply
        September 23, 2011 11:00 AM

        lol what

      • reply
        September 23, 2011 11:21 AM

        I'm still stunned anyone thought it would be out this year.

        • Zek legacy 10 years
          reply
          September 23, 2011 12:35 PM

          By all public appearance the game was right on target for a late November/early December release. People only thought it wouldn't because of general aimless pessimism, which this time just so happened to be right.

          • reply
            September 23, 2011 12:40 PM

            'by all public appearances' = because the beta included like 1/10 of the game?

            • Zek legacy 10 years
              reply
              September 23, 2011 12:53 PM

              They've said a dozen times before that the campaign wasn't built in linear order. I still believe that all the content is done, they most likely delayed for technical/design reasons.

              • reply
                September 23, 2011 2:27 PM

                Eh, Blizzard has always used betas to improve and polish rather than the sneak peek/early access they are used as today.

      • reply
        September 23, 2011 11:26 AM

        yeah no

      • reply
        September 23, 2011 11:35 AM

        "to at least get some exposure" what

      • reply
        September 23, 2011 2:13 PM

        [deleted]

        • reply
          September 23, 2011 2:15 PM

          You don't think Diablo 3 will sell 2.5 million copies?

        • reply
          September 23, 2011 2:17 PM

          Yeah never mind the fact that WoW or Starcraft 2 sold gangbusters. Blizzard is clearly scared.

          • reply
            September 23, 2011 6:15 PM

            [deleted]

            • reply
              September 23, 2011 9:52 PM

              Because it wasn't called Diablo III and made by Blizzard? I believe Torchlight did pretty well as it was.

            • reply
              September 23, 2011 9:55 PM

              I know COD fanboys who would never go near a PC for gaming who are looking forward to Diablo3 more than anything that's on the horizon. I guarantee you Diablo will end up selling more than either Skyrim or BF3, and I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up selling more than both games combined in the long run.

            • reply
              September 23, 2011 10:05 PM

              I disagree about Diablo 2 not maintaining a large active fan base. It's not the official esport of an entire nation, sure, but it's managed to have a very healthy community for a decade old game, and the Diablo 3 hype is definitely bringing the less active Diablo players out of the woodwork again.

              As for Torchlight, sure, not having the Blizzard name behind it hurt. But I think the more important factor was a combination of no multiplayer and lackluster items. The economy is what kept Diablo 2 going for 10 years strong, and no game since Diablo 2 has been able to equal its loot system in terms of diversity, breadth, and depth. These two things are symbiotic, and gave the game its very impressive lifespan.

              Torchlight was a great game, and one of the few games I've managed to finish recently, but I've been playing Diablo 2 for 10 years because of the amazing replayability. I'm looking forward to Diablo 3 for the same reason, and I'm sure a lot of others are as well.

        • reply
          September 23, 2011 2:18 PM

          There's a good possibility it will. The people I know who haven't bought a game in years are talking about buying Diablo 3 because they played 2 in their childhood and loved it.

      • reply
        September 23, 2011 5:41 PM

        I'd imagine D3 and Skyrim would hit similar sales numbers out of the gate, although D3 might have a longer tail. Then again, Bethesda are fairly aggressive with DLC.

      • reply
        September 23, 2011 6:34 PM

        Must be it, yeah.

      • reply
        September 23, 2011 6:45 PM

        Micheal Pachter, is that you?

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 10:40 AM

      index finder? Must be the Mac version..

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 10:44 AM

      LAME but honestly there are sooo many other games coming out in the next 3 months I'll be super busy anyway.

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 11:57 AM

      You know, a buddy of mine has an awesome conspiracy. He believes that they'll only release Diablo 3 when WoW subscriptions hit a certain low point :P.

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 1:34 PM

      Bravo. Seriously. Blizzard knows what's up. Give them time. Let them make the game they intended to make.

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 1:37 PM

      the longer it takes the better the game will be

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 1:53 PM

      Feels like they just want to keep Wow alive a little bit longer to me. The game looks solid from all the videos.

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 2:30 PM

      What a surprise not like blizzards delayed a game before lol

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 9:42 PM

      i'm officially giving up on diablo 3 and spending my money elsewhere. diablo nukem forever.

    • reply
      September 23, 2011 10:11 PM

      Hopefully they're reconsidering their save system. Not holding my breath though.

Hello, Meet Lola