XIV on Switch and Xbox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jadub2k

Plz twelve no switch.. its almost laughable to imply it while making PS3 Support drop & PC Spec Raise pointless lol As for Xbox, they keep saying that they've changed there stance on crossplay but nothings happening yet so obviously there still at an impass.. M$ is the one that needs to budge on this to make this happen and gotta admit... This game would possibly look amazing on "Scorpio".

---

I would really love to see how well it will look on the Scorpio, honestly, as well

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elkanah

I would really love to see how well it will look on the Scorpio, honestly, as well

---

It would look just like it does on Pro, 4, and PC. The only question would be how it's optimized to be used on a Xbox controller. On the Pro/4 the touch pad is used to help navigate through menus.

That mobile version of FFXI we don't ever hear about anymore would probably work wonders on the Switch. But not XIV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetstream_Fox

It would look just like it does on Pro, 4, and PC. The only question would be how it's optimized to be used on a Xbox controller. On the Pro/4 the touch pad is used to help navigate through menus.

---

Controller Mouse Mode lol (L1 + R3) or for Xbox controller that would be Left bumper + Right Stick in.. On top of that, PS4 is Mouse and Keyboard compatible. So you CAN play the console version just like PC by opening your settings, switching from Controller to PC and vise versa on the PC version. Its the same thing, so no doubt the Xbox version will be just like this..

I wouldn't read to much into it, they will always be in talks for more platforms, its just good business. Whether those talks yield anything is another story. Still this is a case of "the more the merrier", so the more platforms they can bring in the better for the game overall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andevom

That mobile version of FFXI we don't ever hear about anymore would probably work wonders on the Switch. But not XIV.

---

thought that got canned? XD Unless you mean grandmasters and that needs a translation! O=

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jadub2k

Controller Mouse Mode lol (L1 + R3) or for Xbox controller that would be Left bumper + Right Stick in.. On top of that, PS4 is Mouse and Keyboard compatible. So you CAN play the console version just like PC by opening your settings, switching from Controller to PC and vise versa on the PC version. Its the same thing, so no doubt the Xbox version will be just like this..

---

I guess they could use Left Bumper and Right Stick, but the touchpad is way more convenient and useful, there is no reason to even use virtual mouse on ps4 because of it. Then again they could use the back button as a similar matter. Since the start menu would undoubtedly bring up the main menus and B would likely cancel out. It would still be real awkward though if you ask me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kosmos992k

PS Plus has zero to do with that.

---

The difference is very simple.

Some vendors, like SE with FF14, have their own servers to run the online mode.

Other vendors host them within the PSN.

The former you can play without PS+. The latter require PS+.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enthauptet

You have to have PS Plus to even play pretty much every single player games.

---

I've never seen a single player game that was not playable without PSPlus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jadub2k

Controller Mouse Mode lol (L1 + R3) or for Xbox controller that would be Left bumper + Right Stick in.. On top of that, PS4 is Mouse and Keyboard compatible.

---

The PS4 compatibility of mouse and keyboard for FFXIV came MUCH MUCH later...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elkanah

Does the Switch have the same kind of tech as the PS3?

---

Slightly better as the PS3. Wii U was en par with the PS3 if not slightly better, Versions like Assassins Creed IV were proof that the Wii U version was better as the PS3 Version.


And now the switch versions of games is slightly better as of the Wii U.
I dont see how the Switch would limit FFXIV. I mean it would be no difference to the huge areas of Heavensward or Stormblood.

FFXIV wont get back to fully Openworld since Yoshi P. argumented that they split the game in zones because of server latency.

Comes down to Power and what a system is able to access and load, Switch would struggle with Stormblood and we would be back to less inventory space, lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maero

Comes down to Power and what a system is able to access and load, Switch would struggle with Stormblood and we would be back to less inventory space, lol

---

If Yoshi thinks stormblood isnt possible on Switch he wouldnt take it into account.
He is not an amateur, so his hardware team.

Secondly: inventory space has nothing to do with the performance of a system.. moreover of server capacities.
Such bullshit..

Thirdly: the Nintendo Switch has MUCH more RAM than the PS3 .. and RAM is the most important thing for a MMorpg.
That was the major issue the team of Yoshida talked about when they worked on the PS3 version of FFXIV back then and why they made the zones smaller. And in the end also why they dropped the PS3 version.

RAM comparison PS3 <> Nintendo Switch:

PS3 RAM: 256 MB DDR3
Switch: 4 GB RAM LPDDR4

in short words: the PS3 is an old horse vs the Switch Handheld.

HUGE difference.. The Switch is technically in between of PS3 / PS4. And im sure the switch could run FFXIV Stormblood without any problems, but maybe not on highest settings if you want 30-60 fps thats for sure. But that wouldnt cause any limitations for the other plattforms. The graphics engine stays the same and we wont get back to the graphics detail of "1.0." (before ARR) where a flower pot contained over 1000 polygons alone.(the polygon amount of a NPC)

http://www.siliconera.com/wordpress/...to3_thumb1.jpg

To that detail we wont ever get back. First: they would need to re-do all old regions (which would be like developing a new game) and secondly: they want to have a MMORPG that everyone can play on their shitty old ass PC's, just like WoW ;)

And as i said just stop that bullshit bashing around the Switch as shown in the technical facts the Nintendo Switch is much powerful than the PS3.. especially when it comes to RAM (PS3 250MB DDR3 vs Switch 4GB LPDDR4 RAM) - the most important thing for a MMorpg.

Additionally FFXIV would run on a flash drive which result in shorter loading times etc.

Well the thing is that MS had FFXI going for years on Xbox. And that cross played with PS2 and windows.
And a switch is better than a PS3. But I don't think it needs to be a thing either. Honestly, more options isn't bad. they just need to put restrictions into the "weaker" options.

I love my switch, and playing it on the couch or wherever would be pretty cool, but I don't want the game to be held back by console restrictions.

Guys, What we need is a "Remote Play" support for the Switch. Have XIV team make a downloaded app, that COULD allow you to stream from your PC to switch or so. That would be neat. Too bad wont happen anytime soon. Guess Ill keep playing XIV off my iPad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonkra

PS3 RAM: 256 MB DDR3
Switch: 4GB RAM LPDDR4

HUGE difference..

---

If you are gonna continue to edit the crap out of your post, change fonts and bold stuff, at least have the correct specs:

PS3: 256MB XDR RAM - System, 256MB GDDR3 VRAM
Switch: 4GB LPDDR4 (Unified/shared between the CPU and GPU)

If you are going to mention YoshiP's talk on PS3 Development and its challenges, it was more that just system memory.

Nintendo's direct competitors are 8GB or more, not using LPDDR, and their console specs will have a longer cycle with the title.

They just dropped PS3 support to get rid of some limitations, they wouldn't want to bring said limitations back with consoles like the Xbox One or Nintendo Switch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mysticales

Guys, What we need is a "Remote Play" support for the Switch. Have XIV team make a downloaded app, that COULD allow you to stream from your PC to switch or so. That would be neat. Too bad wont happen anytime soon. Guess Ill keep playing XIV off my iPad.

---

Actually, a company is working on something like that as we speak. Look up rainway, it's pretty promising. So whether or not the switch has an actual port doesn't really matter, switch owners would be able to play it anyway.

eh to be honest i dont see it happening cas switch has horrible online support right now an Microsoft are jerks that bully companies in to our way or the highway situations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReplicaX

If you are gonna continue to edit the crap out of your post, change fonts and bold stuff, at least have the correct specs:

PS3: 256MB XDR RAM - System, 256MB GDDR3 VRAM
Switch: 4GB LPDDR4 (Unified/shared between the CPU and GPU)

---

Aye right... that makes the Switch obviously slower than a PS3 with 256 MB RAM... not..

And even its Tegra X1 graphics core is the more powerful GPU

Quote:

---

If you are going to mention YoshiP's talk on PS3 Development and its challenges, it was more that just system memory.

---

I play FFXIV since version 1.0. and i watched many videos back then and interviews on the ARR development and YEs... it was THE major issue on PS3.

Quote:

---

and their console specs will have a longer cycle with the title.

---

The game itself wont improve much when it comes to graphics, the environment will stay as low polygon as it is right now. As i said we wont ever go back to 1.0. graphics quality. There is not such a revamp in MMorpg history - and i play MMorpgs since 2000..

and if you havent recognized it yet: the support of PS3 is already gone. Which means the ""full power"" of PS4 and PC is already used in stormblood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amnesiac

They just dropped PS3 support to get rid of some limitations, they wouldn't want to bring said limitations back with consoles like the Xbox One or Nintendo Switch.

---

And you do know that XBox one and PS4 arent away from each other worlds apart?

And if they would implement a Switch version do you think they would "limit" stormblood, cutting it into small zones in order to run on the switch? Like you say "bring back limitations"

The people's thoughts and logic seems very endless...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mysticales

Guys, What we need is a "Remote Play" support for the Switch. Have XIV team make a downloaded app, that COULD allow you to stream from your PC to switch or so. That would be neat. Too bad wont happen anytime soon. Guess Ill keep playing XIV off my iPad.

---

If you wouldn't mind answering, how is it possible to play FFXIV from an iPad? Is it actually good enough to run content with? Or just to do maybe crafting and/or gathering? Or do inventory management tasks?

@Tonkra - I don't know what you based your assumptions on my "logic" about, but you need to chill out my dude. Square wants to move forward with their MMO, thus it wouldn't make sense to place the game on a mobile platform like the Switch, nor would it make much sense to have FFXIV on the Xbox One with the Scorpio project launching this holiday season. I realize the Xbox One and PS4 are the same gen; I play on both platforms. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the next 5-10 years, PS4 support is dropped so the game can expand even further. Do you think a game like World of Warcraft could be played on consoles? I mean, come on, people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonkra

Aye right... that makes the Switch obviously slower than a PS3 with 256 MB RAM... not..

And even its Tegra X1 graphics core is the more powerful GPU

---

No. The GPU on the SoC used for the Switch is not more powerful, the number of units it actually contains is relatively low, and unless you are only quoting the half precision FLOP numbers which are special case measures of performance, not general measures of GPU performance, the Switch GPU is not more powerful. Yes, it's a much more recent architecture than RSX, but the raw numbers are not on your side on this one. Relatively speaking switch is approximately as powerful as a PS3, but comparing like with like shows the false nature of most comparisons made. For the PS3 you need to factor in the single precision FP capability of the Cell BE in addition to the capability of the RSX (which was intended to supplement the RSX), and for the Switch you need to ignore the half precision performance numbers because they are not generally applicable and focus instead on the Single precision performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonkra

Aye right... that makes the Switch obviously slower than a PS3 with 256 MB RAM... not..

And even its Tegra X1 graphics core is the more powerful GPU

---

I'd hate to break it to you, but the Switch and the PS3 have the exact same Memory Bandwidth at 25.6 Gbps despite the Switch having more memory. It's not just about how much memory you have, but also the speeds that memory is running.

Pound for pound, the Switch might pull ahead of a PS3 a bit, but is by no means comparable to PS4 or Xbox One let alone the Pro or a PC. We're dropping a bad system for the game, no sense in picking up another bad system for the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyuuen

I'd hate to break it to you, but the Switch and the PS3 have the exact same Memory Bandwidth at 25.6 Gbps despite the Switch having more memory. It's not just about how much memory you have, but also the speeds that memory is running.

Pound for pound, the Switch might pull ahead of a PS3 a bit, but is by no means comparable to PS4 or Xbox One let alone the Pro or a PC. We're dropping a bad system for the game, no sense in picking up another bad system for the game.

---

there's an incredibly practical demonstration of the fact that Switch is on par with PS3 and 360. Fifa 18 is releasing, and the switch version is the same as that on PS3 and 360, the PS4/Xbox One version uses a different engine (Frostbite) and has more content and features. Unfortunately this demonstrates what many are suggesting, that Switch is in effect the WiiU that should have been, and is of that generation in performance terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amnesiac

nor would it make much sense to have FFXIV on the Xbox One with the Scorpio project launching this holiday season. I realize the Xbox One and PS4 are the same gen; I play on both platforms. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the next 5-10 years, PS4 support is dropped so the game can expand even further.

---

The Xbox One already got upgraded from Windows 8 to Windows 10 so the new one will just be another hardware update, the base OS will more than likely be essentially the same so actually it would be pretty worthwhile to develop for it since it shares a similar platform with a regular desktop pc (essentially).

It is funny how people say Sony is more open with SE than MS is, but MS is waaaaay more open with their console development platorm than Sony has ever been. (development and business deals are separate but this always struck me as kind of funny)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kosmos992k

there's an incredibly practical demonstration of the fact that Switch is on par with PS3 and 360. Fifa 18 is releasing, and the switch version is the same as that on PS3 and 360, the PS4/Xbox One version uses a different engine (Frostbite) and has more content and features. Unfortunately this demonstrates what many are suggesting, that Switch is in effect the WiiU that should have been, and is of that generation in performance terms.

---

I'll have to check that out. I was relying mostly on Tech details and the fact that the Switch being new(er) in architecture that it might pull ahead of PS3 in some areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enthauptet

The Xbox One already got upgraded from Windows 8 to Windows 10 so the new one will just be another hardware update, the base OS will more than likely be essentially the same so actually it would be pretty worthwhile to develop for it since it shares a similar platform with a regular desktop pc (essentially).

It is funny how people say Sony is more open with SE than MS is, but MS is waaaaay more open with their console development platorm than Sony has ever been.

---

Seriously? ROTFLMAO!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyuuen

I'll have to check that out. I was relying mostly on Tech details and the fact that the Switch being new(er) in architecture that it might pull ahead of PS3 in some areas.

---

It does, but it falls slightly behind in others. The much larger memory pool compensates for most of that making it a wash, Switch is about as powerful as the PS3 with the benefits of also having a more modern GPU architecture and much more memory. Overall, though, they are similar in terms of the results on screen. I was surprised by the FIFA 18 stuff, I only heard about it this week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kosmos992k

Seriously? ROTFLMAO!

---

Do you just sit around and troll?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enthauptet

Do you just sit around and troll?

---

Do you? Calling Microsoft open is like suggesting that the KGB is a force for world peace.

Okay I am just going to assume you don't know anything about software development and leave it at that.

Here is a reality of game development.

Whether the game is released on Xbox One and Switch or not depends on one primary factor.

That's whether Square Enix projects that the money they'll make on either of those platforms justifies the effort required to develop and market a port.

Nothing said in this thread matters, so may want to calm down with the console war.


Now that we've gotten that out of the way, here is another interesting thing for those who think that this is in any shape or form new (hint: it really isn't, even the possibility of a Switch version was already mentioned at Frankfurt fanfest).

Yoshi-P first mentioned negotiating with Microsoft for an Xbox One version in 2014.

They were still negotiating in 2015.

And they were still negotiating in 2016.

They've been negotiating for four years. And then people wonder why I don't ask anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonkra

If Yoshi thinks stormblood isnt possible on Switch he wouldnt take it into account.
He is not an amateur, so his hardware team.

Secondly: inventory space has nothing to do with the performance of a system.. moreover of server capacities.
Such bullshit..

---

You do realize it has been the so called reason thus far for inventory space, because apparent limitations....
I did not agree with it and the jokes going around about PS3 limitations though. So many developers were still clueless how to harness all the power of the PS3 even at the end of it's cycle.

Anyhow a few people have already disproved your other points so i will leave it at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonkra

a PS3 with 256 MB RAM...

---

The PS3 has dedicated System & VRAM 256/256. Not "256MB RAM" which I am correcting you on once again as the Switch has Unified RAM.

I only corrected your misinformation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonkra

it was THE major issue on PS3.

---

You blamed the "PS3" as the Major reason of why they made zones smaller, this is incorrect.

Going smaller allowed more unique textures and less overuse of texture instancing and a reduction in server loads due the heavy server side checks are 2 Critically important reasons.

The Team wanted smaller more detailed zones while maintaining stable server loads VS Mass over usage of texture instancing in Large zones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonkra

the support of PS3 is already gone.

---

Then why are you continually comparing a 2006 console to a 2017 console and posting its incorrect specs to begin with?

No. Just no. It will create more restrictions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enthauptet

Okay I am just going to assume you don't know anything about software development and leave it at that.

---

LOL, if you want to do this, OK.

1. Xbox uses an embedded version of Windows, think shoehorning the Windows behemoth into an embedded platform, it's not running Windows 10, you can't install Windows 10 on it.
2. You are making the mistake of equating market presence with openness. Windows is a highly proprietary, closed OS owned by Microsoft. Microsoft is using Windows on Xbox in order to try to drag PCs and Xbox together so that they can run the same games on both, and falsely claim multi-platform openness.
3. PS4 system software is a version of FreeBSD which is in fact an OPEN source OS.

As it happens I am a developer and I am fully aware of Microsoft's well documented and proven history of anti competitive practices, and closed systems primarily related to Windows itself, but also other products of theirs such as Office. MS is also a master of "FUD" - fear, uncertainty and doubt; which is uses to seed doubt and fear in the minds of customers considering competing platforms.

Yes Windows is near ubiquitous on PCs, but that market presence does not in any way indicate openness on the part of Microsoft as a software developer, platform holder or corporation.

I was laughing at your naive implication that MS is open because they embedded Windows on Xbox, even upgrading to "windows 10" because Windows is far from open and Microsoft themselves are even further from open. Microsoft have repeatedly used their market presence to eliminate competitors, competing standards and open standards. Please understand, this isn't an opinion of mine it's documented fact.

Microsoft operate on a policy of Embrace, extend and extinguish. This policy follows the general course of MS identifying a segment they want to dominate, they launch a product and appear to embrace all the existing standards and conventions of the segment. Then Microsoft extends their offering, adding proprietary extensions to what was once an open standard or an industry standard accepted by all. Finally, using their overwhelming market presence, Microsoft marginalizes competitors that cannot support those proprietary standards by creating false comparisons showing their extended products in a favorable light, and locking competitors out either by keeping their systems closed or charging prohibitively high license fees to use their new 'standard'. This ultimately forces competitors out and extinguishes them leaving Microsoft as the predominant player in the segment.

The idea that Microsoft should be held as an example of openness compared to anyone is laughable.

Now that is done, feel free to assume anything you like about my professional abilities, though assuming I don't know anything about software development would be a massively wrong assumption to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enthauptet

It is funny how people say Sony is more open with SE than MS is, but MS is waaaaay more open with their console development platorm than Sony has ever been. (development and business deals are separate but this always struck me as kind of funny)

---

What did I just read?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vespar

Yoshi has been in talks with MS for years regarding an Xbox version. In the past though, Microsoft wouldnt change its policy regarding shared servers with Sony, etc.
If MS is willing to change their policy to allow for cross-system server play, then an Xbox version would likely move forward. (Either that or Xbox users would be all on their own, with their own community)

As for switch... this has me worried. We just got rid of PS3 support.. Why do we wanna bog it down again with limited hardware specs like that of the switch?

---

The reason Xbox versions never come out is because of Xbox Live requirements. Microsoft wants control over the matchmaking process, and by allowing MMORPG's on the platform, means they don't have to pay Xbox Live. There have been several "complete" MMORPG's ported to use the Xbox 360 but then Microsoft screws them.

I imagine the problem is similar with Sony and Nintendo. Nintendo even separates the cash-shop between Android and iOS users because Android users are more likely to cheat on their mobile phone games. See Pokemon Go.

In the case of the Switch, I imagine that the Tegra platform actually would allow SE to port FFXIV over easier because it uses the nVidia gameworks libraries. nVidia claims the GPU is more powerful than one found in the Xbox 360 or PS3, but that's still speculation because mobile devices typically have power requirements to allow it to run on battery, and you are hard pressed to get "PS3" performance out of a mobile device without it being plugged into a charger full time.

The most powerful mobile device you can buy right now is the Apple iPad Pro (A10 Fusion CPU/GPU, aka iPad 7,4) http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3036382 , where as the Switch is about the same performance level of the nVidia Shield http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/...seline=3036382 , So to put things in perspective using the Shield as a reference point, the Switch is likely somewhere around the performance of a 13" MacBook Pro (12,1) http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/...seline=2647944 from 2015. The closest single core and multi-core match is actually closer to the i5-4310M 2.7Ghz.

It's a bit hard to say one way or the other, but it's likely that FFXIV running on the switch would be running a "standard, mobile" settings, not "high quality, desktop"

Even then, I think the play experience on the Switch would likely be less intuitive since most touch-screens are terrible for response time, so unless you are going to exclusively use the controller crossbar, I doubt the touch screen will be the main input device. Even on games ported to phones and tablets, "virtual controllers" have generally been extremely bad experiences. Though that didn't stop SE from porting FF7 to one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetstream_Fox

It would look just like it does on Pro, 4, and PC. The only question would be how it's optimized to be used on a Xbox controller. On the Pro/4 the touch pad is used to help navigate through menus.

---

Most likely similar to how PC and the Xbox One controller work as it is. I've tested both the PS4 and the PC with controller to see how the functionality is used, and they're actually pretty similar. The only difference is that the Xbox One controller uses the select button (button with 2 squares overlapping) as the touch pad. And the start button works similar to the PS4 versions on the controller already. Since Microsoft has been working on putting in the keyboard function for some games; I could see XBS using a KBM or controller function

Xbox has been notorious with cross server play and lifting the requirements of Xbox Live. I think some of you have seriously never played on a Xbox console, their strict requirements date back to the original Xbox, this is going to be a bit of a history lesson. When Sega released Phantasy Star Online Episode 1 and 2 on Xbox, the game was required to have Xbox Live, plus a Hunters License, it's online service fee. Sega gave the green light for this, released the game, but stopped supporting it because of Xbox wanting to charge for updates, players got annoyed at the lack of updates and eventually started to hack the game, they were able to bring over Dreamcast items, that were planned to be released in content updates, as well as found files that suggested that Sega was considering bringing over Episode 4 to Xbox as a final expansion, instead that was scrapped and it was released as Phantasy Star Online Blue Burst, as a PC only release.

Microsoft has continued to do this, and even stopped the Xbox 360 version of The Orange Box from using steam servers, they also prevented Portal 2 from again being cross play. Sony actually allowed cross play before Xbox ever did and way before any of this started to come back into the main stream with Portal 2.