This is actually most likely false.
Immunities already existed within Diablo 1 (there were even triple-immune monsters, that is to say monsters that were immune to all three types of spell damage, though this was bad design), when characters could have all existing spells, that is to say they had a wide toolbox that let them play around immunities (for example by transforming ennemies into stone and killing them in melee when they were immune to everything).
That toolbox mindset was originally also there in Diablo 2, although to a lesser extent. Without synergies, you could easily have multiple damage types on a single character.
The issue came when they added synergies, forcing characters to specialize (the goal at that time was likely to avoid the issue of players simply not spending their points at all on low level skills to have 5 different level 30 or 24 skills). When you have 3 or 4 synergies for a single skill (that is to say 80 or 100 points on a single skill), there’s no chance you’ll be able to work around immunities.
But while I agree that this design is bad, I don’t think it’s a good idea to simply remove immunities altogether (even as an “option”). This would require significant redesign of the game, and at this point of the game’s life, I wouldn’t expect sufficient resources to be spent to make good work doing so (just like I don’t think any other massive change would be a good idea).
Options aren’t always a positive to the game, especially options that make the game significantly easier. Just to show you how absurd the argument is : what if we added an option to make all monsters have 1 HP and deal 1 damage? It’s just an option, so it shouldn’t be an issue, right?
Like others have suggested, I would suggest too to look into what has been created by the modding community, as you may find what you are looking for there. (I wouldn’t be insultingly dismissive about it like some are, though.)
This would be a significant problem, as in seasons, players compete with each other to get to level 99 the fastest. They can’t afford to not take that kind of toggled advantage if it is available, even if they are against it.
Hell difficulty isn’t for the super casual part of the audience. Normal difficulty is. If you are playing hell, you should be willing to spend some effort to deal with its challenges, rather than request the game is made easier so that those challenges aren’t challenges anymore.
Don’t get me wrong, I do think that there are issues with hell, for example the large gap in difficulty between the end of nightmare act V or nightmare terror zones and hell act I. Just removing the hurdles altogether isn’t a good way of dealing with that.
And this is bad thing. There should be games where you have a wider array of tools available, so that you can deal with monsters that have immunities. Immunities can be very good to give extra flavor for monsters, like the Frozen Horrors being immune to cold.
I’d say it’s not so much that he wants to turn it into noobland. He simply wants to change its core to make it something entirely different.
No. You beat the game when you finish Act V Normal. Anything else is extra for those that want to invest more of their time in the game.
Again, and I’ll really insist on that : not all options are good to have. Especially in multiplayer, difficulty “options” can easily become almost mandatory to the community, as they impact speed on the leaderboards, farming efficiency, etc…
If you want that “option”, don’t try to make the game worse for the community as a whole by adding that option to the base game. Go look at the mods available for the game.