After Diablo Immortal launched, a wave of negative feedback swept through the player community. Reviews on Metacritic plummeted to a troubling 0.7 out of 10, a disappointing signal to fans and newcomers alike. The outcry wasn’t only about the pricing model; players accused the developers of deception and broken promises that had excited anticipation before release.
Before the game hit shelves, the game director Wyatt Cheng publicly assured fans that upgrading equipment would not be purchasable with real money. In practice, players discovered a system centered around gems that can dramatically boost a character’s stats. While these gems aren’t directly purchased, players can obtain glyphs that boost the drop rate of Legendary gems, and some glyphs even guarantee gem drops after completing certain dungeons. This subtle distinction between direct purchases and guaranteed loot created a murky perception of progress being tied to spending rather than skill or perseverance.
The controversy intensified when a well-known content creator spoke out about the issue. Game director Wyatt Cheng replied that there had been a misunderstanding, insisting that gems and equipment operate as separate systems despite the visible overlap in progression mechanics. This clarification did little to quell the frustration among players who felt misled by the communication and the perceived imbalance introduced by monetized gear pathways.
Another focal point of the debate appeared when a noted industry commentator suggested that reaching the highest tier for Legendary Gems could require an enormous outlay of money. Estimates from a popular streamer placed potential costs in the range of tens of thousands of dollars, highlighting a perception that endgame power might be gated behind significant real-world spending. Critics argued that even with free play methods, maxing these gems could take an impractically long time, effectively forcing players to choose between patience and purchasing power. The debate spread across social platforms as fans debated fairness, value, and how game economies should respect players who choose to invest their time rather than their money.
Despite the loud online sentiment, the game managed to secure relatively high user ratings on established app marketplaces. On Google Play, the game received a respectable if not stellar 3.9 out of 5, while the App Store delivered a stronger 4.7 out of 5. Critics in the press also offered cautious praise, noting visual polish, even on midrange devices, and a surprisingly competent mobile-to-PC port experience. An iOS-focused review roundup placed the project at 79 out of 100 on Metacritic, suggesting that professional critics saw some redeeming qualities despite fan uproar. These mixed evaluations underscored the split between what some players consider a solid mobile RPG and what others view as a monetization model that undermines core progression principles.
A separate set of demonstrations compared Diablo Immortal’s visuals on disparate hardware. A high-end PC with an RTX 3080 delivered markedly different graphics from a flagship mobile device like the Galaxy S21, revealing the game’s cross-device ambitions while highlighting the compromises that come with mobile-first design. Observers noted that the game can look impressive when pushed by powerful hardware, but still scales to more modest configurations, which matters for players across North America who might be accessing the title from a wide range of devices and network conditions. Those who read deeper impressions found a mix of strong art direction and moments where optimization and consistency could improve, especially in crowded outdoor scenes and dungeon interiors.
Readers who want a fuller picture of the experience can explore a dedicated impressions piece that examines performance, monetization ethics, and the overall gameplay loop. The ongoing conversation touches on themes like player agency, value, and how live-service titles should balance ongoing revenue opportunities with a fair, fun experience for all players. Across communities, the takeaway remains that success for a game in the mobile space hinges not only on initial appeal but on transparent communication, responsive development, and a monetization framework that respects time investment as a legitimate path to progress. The discussion continues to evolve as players, critics, and developers weigh the tradeoffs inherent in live-service design and the expectations of a global audience that includes many in Canada and the United States who bring diverse perspectives on value and fairness.