I had generally hoped that Blizzard wouldn't go this route, but seeing how ActiBlizz (i.e., Bobby Kotick's Vision) is following in the footsteps of EA, this makes sense. The executives of development studios these days are not so much interested in producing great games (the people who actually create the game might be however), but in generating revenue. They seem a game as 'product', and that they need to push as much 'product' as possible with the lowest possible cost. Sadly at this time, executives see consoles as a cash cow, and even sadder still, some of them see their capabilities as equal to the PC.
However, I see the following quote as their attempt to blow smoke up our *****. Notice the portion of 'no intention', rather than 'we will not allow' or something similar. The phrasing of words is important, and this statement, in no way, takes a definitive stance against a single product on multiple platforms. The people sitting in comfy chairs at the top of the building could could very easily step in and force a single product on multiple platforms.
Quote from "Blizzard" »
"We are first and foremost developing Diablo III for Windows and Mac PCs, and we have no intention of allowing a console interpretation to delay or otherwise affect the release of the game.
As I said above, it's about pushing product with minimal costs, and that means producing one product on multiple platforms. I also think that it's important to point out that Blizzard is not totally in control of their ship, and because of that, the internal policies regarding development may not be as definitive as they once were.
Also as I pointed out in the other thread dealing with this topic, if Blizzard takes this route, they may generate revenue from console sales, but it will also hurt revenue due to disgruntled PC Users.
So, recently I found and watched the Artisan release video on Youtube. Now, while I do like this approach, much was made about the 'hero' not having to actually craft items. I found this a bit perplexing because, aren't you the 'player' still the one appropriating and adding materials and items into the mix, and clicking the associated 'make' button? If that's so, how is the player not crafting? Perhaps what they might mean by the player not having 'a second job' so to speak, is instead avoiding having to acquire specific skills or train specific skills? But still isn't that still the same thing with a different name? Puttah posting below, summed this up nicely, "Even the added feature of having to buy the skills to craft in wow doesn't seem any different to buying a higher grade artisan." Great point Puttah!
I think the attributable phrase, "...we felt that the idea that the player would have a side job [of crafting]... , ...didn't really fit the tone of a diablo game." might have more sense if the Artisan was able take care of all the crafting without having any input from the player. Now while that probably wouldn't be any fun, it is more descriptive of what Jay is stating.
In the end, if the player is contributing materials and is conducive and participatory in the crafting process, they are ipso facto 'crafting'. Granted this is a game of semantics, but the entire "heroic characters shouldn't have to craft" argument is filled with falsehoods, erroneous statements, misconceptions and probably quite a few stereotypes. An RPG (by definition) has to have some form of a crafting system (of which the player is participatory) or the end result is third person shooter/dungeon crawler.
At first I was thinking "oh boy I'm gonna have to flame this kid so hard" but then it dawned on me, you have a good point! It really is not that much different than, say, in wow where you have to gather the materials anyway, and then craft them by clicking a button here and there. Even the added feature of having to buy the skills to craft in wow doesn't seem any different to buying a higher grade artisan.
1
However, I see the following quote as their attempt to blow smoke up our *****. Notice the portion of 'no intention', rather than 'we will not allow' or something similar. The phrasing of words is important, and this statement, in no way, takes a definitive stance against a single product on multiple platforms. The people sitting in comfy chairs at the top of the building could could very easily step in and force a single product on multiple platforms.
As I said above, it's about pushing product with minimal costs, and that means producing one product on multiple platforms. I also think that it's important to point out that Blizzard is not totally in control of their ship, and because of that, the internal policies regarding development may not be as definitive as they once were.
Also as I pointed out in the other thread dealing with this topic, if Blizzard takes this route, they may generate revenue from console sales, but it will also hurt revenue due to disgruntled PC Users.
1
I think the attributable phrase, "...we felt that the idea that the player would have a side job [of crafting]... , ...didn't really fit the tone of a diablo game." might have more sense if the Artisan was able take care of all the crafting without having any input from the player. Now while that probably wouldn't be any fun, it is more descriptive of what Jay is stating.
In the end, if the player is contributing materials and is conducive and participatory in the crafting process, they are ipso facto 'crafting'. Granted this is a game of semantics, but the entire "heroic characters shouldn't have to craft" argument is filled with falsehoods, erroneous statements, misconceptions and probably quite a few stereotypes. An RPG (by definition) has to have some form of a crafting system (of which the player is participatory) or the end result is third person shooter/dungeon crawler.