[Suggestion] PS4 version.

[Sarick]

This is all to say that they did not just cut their losses and back off of the MMO market entirely and leave FFXI as is, or that they did not attempt to save FFXIV yet again, or something similar with their extra hypothetical income from FFXI:SoA.

This is the only thing I'm seeing is cutting, servers, cutting, staff, cutting play online features and cutting support. Despite having new expansion they seem to at the last movement decided not to support XP. This way if their updates screw stuff up or break the client they can say Opps, sorry we don't support that anymore. Go buy a new OS/computer. It's a lovely bad example of how much cost cutting is going on.

I highly highly very highly doubt a PS4 version is created. It's an investment that doesn't fit well with bean counters. The PC users can't even get a BOXED set for gods sake this essentially means they're trying to reduce overhead cost as much as possible. That and they slapped that last minute notice that on seekers expansion launch date "We no longer support XP" shows they're looking to limit the stress of supporting the older OS.

There is enough evidence that bean counters are in action. Like it or not FFXI might really be on the chopping block despite the new expansion. A PS4 version doesn't fit with bean counter bottom lines unless there is a sudden surge of high demand. LOL

http://exploredia.com/top-10-mmorpg/

http://mmoattack.com/mmo-articles/to...rpg-games-2013

Why should they care? When looking at popularity of online games FFXI and FFXIV doesn't even rank these days in comparison to other online games. As a result funding may be lower priority then we're lead to believe. There's just to much good competition out there for a company to get a foothold if they have bad service, design, promotion and/or support. Making a PS4 version wouldn't do squat unless they do things to make the MMO better then everyone else.

Other then this top 100 list I couldn't find FFXI in other top ten rankings. Not surprisingly FFXIV was no where in any of the list yet they planned on making it for PS3.

[Demon6324236]

In that case it would be the game as a whole, not simply PC. I agree, however I was just trying to point out with how things are going right now, it seems as though PS2 will be on its way out way before PC is.

[Zenoxio]

http://astralsidegames.com/blog-entry-3059.html

Google Translation:

Satoshi Matsui Sukueni I think whether I came out the possibility of porting "FF11". I want to try to make Gaiden "FF11". Server to the client, the Vita the PS4, or bring their play PT Vita

[Laraul]

Sony said prior to the PS3's release that it could run on two HDTVs at once. That it would be able to play all PS2 games with "enhanced graphics." That it would increase your sex appeal when taken once daily. One of those I might be confusing with something else, but I've learned that what Sony says and what Sony delivers are two different things.

PCs can use controllers and game pads just like the console. PCs can be connected to TVs in your living room just like consoles. There is no real advantage to consoles other than they're cheaper.

There's the advantage that with a console when you buy a game for it, you know it's going to run and you will be able to play it. PCs can't do that. No one will argue that a PC is capable of producing graphics far better than any console. Or that the hardware can be 50 times as powerful. But people will say that PCs are not worth all the hassle of getting a game to run when you can just buy a console, turn it on, and go. And that's what people want. To just sit back and play.

[RAIST]

There's the advantage that with a console when you buy a game for it, you know it's going to run and you will be able to play it. PCs can't do that. No one will argue that a PC is capable of producing graphics far better than any console. Or that the hardware can be 50 times as powerful. But people will say that PCs are not worth all the hassle of getting a game to run when you can just buy a console, turn it on, and go. And that's what people want. To just sit back and play.

That's why every PC game has labeling detailing the minimum/recommended system requirements. If one takes the time to research/build/buy a system with respectable hardware (ie, avoiding cheezy non-dedicated GPU's and such) and is actually paying attention when they buy the game, they know in advance if their system can run it. Also, in this day and age, many of the game companies will have a demo or benchmark utitlity to help you test your system for playability in advance. IF it comes up short in one department (Graphics, memory, processing power, API support, etc)--one can usually simply upgrade the component (in most cases, barring moving to new architecture that requires a new motherboard). Even if they need a new motherboard/CPU technology, it is still an "in-place" upgrade--it maintains backwards compatibility in better than probably 90% of the cases. I say 90% because some games are just flat out broken on today's PC's without running something to control clock speed and such because they were built to run on a 386 or 486 architecture or an older DirectX version---but there usually is a way to run it.

In contrast....if the game you want to play is not released for your console, you have to buy another console to play it. A perfect example is FFXI. If you want to continue playing it on a console....you are now restricted to older content outside of JP UNLESS you have/purchase it for XB360. Yet, the PC players can continue on. If you want to play Diablo on a console, you have to still have that older console lying around---where as you can pop you PC/MAC disk in and go.

Edit: Afterthought, Diablo is a bad example, as it was a PS release, and is thus playable on PS2 and PS3...but take something like Panzer Dragoon for the Saturn. If you no longer have a functioning Saturn to play it on, you can run it through emulation on the PC, or you may have the PC release of the game.

Also, games on consoles aren't always so consistent with the playability factor. That's one of the big things they get scored on in reviews. For instance, you may have an acceptible single player experience but crappy multiplay, whereas the PC version is more consistent. You also can run into situations where a game was intended for the PC but also got released for the console, and the console version had to be "dumbed down" so it could run acceptibly on the console's more restricted resources (ie, part of what has happened to FFXIV).

Consoles are fine for games that were INTENDED to run on a console....but when the concept/assets can be advanced further by running it in a PC/MAC environment, in most cases, it tends to offer a better experience overall.

[Jackstin]

All you have to do on PC is research what parts are good, ensure they meet your games requirements (assuming they've been released), build the pc, download the benchmark and install the game. I don't see how that's more difficult than buying a console and the..oh wait.

[RAIST]

All you have to do on PC is research what parts are good, ensure they meet your games requirements (assuming they've been released)build the pc, download the benchmark and install the game. I don't see how that's more difficult than buying a console and the..oh wait.

Really? I guess perhaps if you have a real dinosaur of a system you might need to build a new system for a brand new release. Games usually take a while to develop/test and are often behind the curve on the latest and greatest hardware available. The core of my system dates back to 2010 and has enough power to play games that are being launched in 2013, and possibly beyond. It was MORE than enough for fFXIV beta, and is more than enough for Diablo 3:
http://www.diablowiki.net/Diablo_III...m_Requirements

Diablo III Minimum System Requirements
From the official page:[[1]]

[edit] Windows
Windows® XP/Vista/7 (latest service packs) with DX 9.0c
Intel Pentium® D 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 4400+
NVIDIA® GeForce® 7800 GT or ATI Radeon™ X1950 Pro or better
1 GB RAM (XP), 1.5 GB (Vista/7)
12 GB available HD space
DVD-ROM (required for retail disc versions only)
Broadband* Internet connection
1024x748 minimum resolution
[edit] Mac
Mac® OS X 10.6.8, 10.7.x or newer
Intel® Core 2 Duo
NVIDIA® GeForce® 8600M GT or ATI Radeon™ HD 2600 or better
2 GB RAM
12 GB available HD space
DVD-ROM (required for retail disc versions only)
Broadband* Internet connection1024x768 minimum resolution
* Be advised that some wireless connections do not meet the minimums required to be a true Broadband Internet connection. Wireless results may vary.

Note that some of the important hardware on that list dates back as far as 2005/2006, and the software even further back. Note also the proposed level of support for the new Tomb Raider isn't much higher than this either...they were recommending slightly newer graphics cards (ATI 4870 and nVidia 480 series) and quad core CPU's, but the minimum specs are basically in line with D3.

Basically one just needs to invest in a new gaming grade system and it will be viable for at the very least several years to come, even at the production level we are currently seeing. Now, if a person opts instead to buying already outdated used hardware off ebay or something, that is a whole different ball game. So long as one is keeping up with fairly recent technology, they should be fine. For instance, one of the biggest things to avoid is the cheezy integrated GPU and shared system memory--a strong graphics processor is easily choked by the slow fill rate of a crappy memory subsystem. So long as the buyer is aware of such simple things, it's easy to find a system that will hold up for years to come, possibly even a decade with some minor upgrades when needed.