PlayStation 3 version: Why Bother?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zehira

I heard someone said PS4 is going to use a Vita-like CPU, if a port can be working like the Vita, it should be cheaper and easier for developers. Cell processor costs them too expensive though.

---

For the PS4 CPU to be like the vita CPU it will have to have the ARM instruction set. Right now ARM CPUs are low powered and slower. I don't know much details of the PS4, looks like I'll have to go hunting.

It's AMD A10 I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zehira

It's AMD A10 I think.

---

That's x86 APU (GPU+CPU), very different than Vita. I wouldn't be surprised if Sony adds a ARM coprocessor to run vita games on PS4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pseudopsia

I wouldn't be surprised if Sony adds a ARM co processor to run vita games on PS4.

---

I don't think they want to do that, yet want you to buy both. lol

Thanks for the info.

Other alternative is an emulator, like what they did with PS3 to run PS1 games.

Rumors said it probably won't play PS3 games again.

You're probably right, Sony being cheap.

Edit: Took a look at the rumors; pretty much as you said. I'm a little disappointed with the rumored specs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xenor

I wouldn't rule out the XBox 360/720 either. It was the old development team who couldn't reach an agreement with Microsoft. The new team may be able to.

---

It's not just SE or FF14 Team 1.0. Others have announced MMOs for Xbox. Two I know of that had been advertised for simultaneous PC release then canceled within a month of PC launch: Conan and Champions Online. SE actually posted in 2010 they might consider the Xbox only if Microsoft adopted more reasonable policies. Forum speculation was that maybe MS wanted to restrict to Xbox-only servers, perhaps located at MS data centers, or even a cut of the monthly fee.

Someone else mentioned Mac OS X. :D
It would be much easier to port to Mac than anything else. BlueGartr even posted instructions for getting version 1 running via Wine, which worked fairly well. And SE can use the professional Cider by TransGaming. Just wrap, debug, and ship.

I understand and respect that SE's priority has to be to PC and PS3 first. But with WoW having launched with a Mac version, and now even Guild Wars 2 has a Mac version, they may want consider a Mac port sooner rather than later, if they haven't already.

Pretty simple and Yoshi - P has already commented on this. I will try to find it again, but the short story behind it is this. Yes, PS4 will probably coming out soon. The player base that own a PS4 tho as soon as it comes out will be very small for them to make the game ready for it. PS3 has been out forever and a lot of people own them now. So that is a wider base of players that maybe do not have the money to pay for a laptop or a decent computer. They are trying to make the game accessible for many players to access when it comes out. He also said he does have plans to take it on to the ps4, but it would be not make much sense to release it as a ps4 game because of such a small player base. Although his number 1 goal is bringing players back to the game and regain the player base trust in SE.

'Cause it allows a wider audience. Not everyone has a great PC, and some people just don't like playing on a PC. ...And SOME people don't own a PC at all (such as mac owners).

The point of having a ps3 version is for people with lower quality pc's to play with the most enjoyment.... Meaning reduced lag and graphic issues... That's really the only reason for it... It can also allow new means of adding trophies and better support for gamepad... (I use the ps3 as my gamepad but I have to enable it with a program each time when I want to use it, with the ps3 version I don't need to do that)... It also opens the door to ps3 players that may not have a pc, don't like traditional mmo's, want to think of this more as an rpg rather than mmo, people with low space in computer, and people who dislike playing computer games in general...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Punainen

'Cause it allows a wider audience. Not everyone has a great PC, and some people just don't like playing on a PC. ...And SOME people don't own a PC at all (such as mac owners).

---

Actually Mac owners do have PCs, they just may not have Windows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ispano

Actually Mac owners do have PCs, they just may not have Windows.

---

Lol i thought so, but wasn't going to comment back on this because i thought maybe there was something i don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Punainen

'Cause it allows a wider audience. Not everyone has a great PC, and some people just don't like playing on a PC. ...And SOME people don't own a PC at all (such as mac owners).

---

Mac owners could use boot camp. Thats what I use...

http://www.davidbaumgold.com/tutorials/wine-mac/

From what I see, OS X borrowed Linux features.

Also the person that said 360/720 might be possible, unlikely. It's primarily MS that prevented it from happening. They want to keep the system closed, ie wouldn't be able to play with other systems. Second is the issue of paying for Live in addition to the sub. Having worked for that particular area of MS for a while, what I learned reinforces this.

And before someone pipes up about XI, that was done to increase awareness/etc of the console early on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zehira

http://www.davidbaumgold.com/tutorials/wine-mac/

From what I see, OS X borrowed Linux features.

---

Well OSX is basically a variant of UNIX in the first place.

Actually FreeBSD. Both linux and FreeBSD are unix like operating systems that wine can be compiled for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ispano

Well OSX is basically a variant of UNIX in the first place.

---

Yep, from what I heard, old PowerPC apps cost more money for developers so that's why they changed it to UNIX one.

Engineering companies still use unix since they offer the best graphic performance with the engineering software... And aren't all OS's nowadays derived from unix...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zehira

Yep, from what I heard, old PowerPC apps cost more money for developers so that's why they changed it to UNIX one.

---

Oh ya, I remember having to develop for and support a PowerPC based macs. Ya It was a pain in the ass. PowerPC mac OS X macs were freebsd based as well. They just changed from PowerPC to x86 Intel CPUs and recompile everything for x86.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pseudopsia

Actually FreeBSD. Both linux and FreeBSD are unix like operating systems that wine can be compiled for.

---

lol well, I have my high-end desktop with Windows 7 Ultimate and this MacBook Pro. Not sure where I put FreeBSD on? Maybe my lousy laptops or my heavy-loud server? Wait, they can't play ARR, can they?

I guess for now I will be using boot camp to play it. :3

Part of it actually had to do with Apple not liking the slow progression of the PowerPC line from IBM. They weren't coming along as well as x86 chips. And with them purchasing NeXT they gained a UNIX like OS that could easily run on both with some work.

I think there will still be compatibility issues with wine, best to use Windows 7 pc or mac with boot camp for now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pseudopsia

I think there will still be compatibility issues with wine, best to use Windows 7 pc or mac with boot camp for now.

---

1.0 actually ran smoother in windows 8 so maybe ARR will run the best on windows 8 too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pseudopsia

Oh ya, I remember having to develop for and support a PowerPC based macs. Ya It was a pain in the ass. PowerPC macs were freebsd based as well. They just changed from PowerPC to x86 Intel CPUs and recompile everything for x86.

---

Actually MacOS before OSX wasn't Unix based at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirito

1.0 actually ran smoother in windows 8 so maybe ARR will run the best on windows 8 too...

---

I'm using Windows 8 now. I hate the interface, however performance feels a little snapper. There's a lot of other issues I have to put up with with windows 8, however FFXIV 1.0 ran perfectly on windows 8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ispano

Actually MacOS before OSX wasn't Unix based at all.

---

That's right, however first macs with Mac OS X had PowerPC CPU. I hardly worked with the MacOS before mac os x.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ispano

Also the person that said 360/720 might be possible, unlikely. It's primarily MS that prevented it from happening. They want to keep the system closed, ie wouldn't be able to play with other systems. Second is the issue of paying for Live in addition to the sub. Having worked for that particular area of MS for a while, what I learned reinforces this.

And before someone pipes up about XI, that was done to increase awareness/etc of the console early on.

---

When Microsoft stop making you need to have gold account to use stuff you are paying for separately i don't see a lot of mmo's coming their way.

Why bother ? Simple. There is a market for it.

What I meant was that the PowerPC Macs were around and kicking before OSX. So they weren't Unix based, it just got ported to them prior to the transition.

Okay, I modified my post. I wasn't thinking prior to mac os x.

Because having the game on two platforms means having more subscribers.

It really is that simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maxwell

There is a market for it.

---

People who have a PS3 but not an adequate PC (whatever that ends up being for ARR), who are interested in playing a full-budget, subscription-based MMO but not interested in playing one long enough to be forced to migrate to PC to continue playing?

Just how big is that market? After all, ARR will supposedly require less resources than 1.0, which was aimed at hardware from two years ago. The more people who get adequate performance in the ARR benchmark, the fewer people who have a reason to bother with the PS3 dead end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziyyigo-Tipyigo

People who have a PS3 but not an adequate PC (whatever that ends up being for ARR), who are interested in playing a full-budget, subscription-based MMO but not interested in playing one long enough to be forced to migrate to PC to continue playing?

Just how big is that market? After all, ARR will supposedly require less resources than 1.0, which was aimed at hardware from two years ago. The more people who get adequate performance in the ARR benchmark, the fewer people who have a reason to bother with the PS3 dead end.

---

Like I said before, the Playerbase in Japan is larger on the PS3 than it is on PC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziyyigo-Tipyigo

People who have a PS3 but not an adequate PC (whatever that ends up being for ARR), who are interested in playing a full-budget, subscription-based MMO but not interested in playing one long enough to be forced to migrate to PC to continue playing?

Just how big is that market? After all, ARR will supposedly require less resources than 1.0, which was aimed at hardware from two years ago. The more people who get adequate performance in the ARR benchmark, the fewer people who have a reason to bother with the PS3 dead end.

---

Don't understand why PS3 users would need to migrate to pc eventually? If there is an expansion, then make it so that once you have the expansion on your permanent options, the game downloads it automatically... Or make it so you can buy the expansion on psn... I honestly see SE selling crysta on psn...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ispano

Like I said before, the Playerbase in Japan is larger on the PS3 than it is on PC.

---

I agree with this too... Also handhelds games are more dominant in Japan than consoles, while consoles are more dominant in the US than handheld games... But Japan's gaming far dominate U.S. gaming...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ispano

Like I said before, the Playerbase in Japan is larger on the PS3 than it is on PC.

---

The same is often said about the PS2, and yet the PS2 version of FFXI is plagued with years-old, game-breaking bugs that force a hard reset of the console.

Even in the Japanese market, S-E has a history of shafting console players in their MMO's, forcing players to migrate to PC in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ispano

What I meant was that the PowerPC Macs were around and kicking before OSX. So they weren't Unix based, it just got ported to them prior to the transition.

---

now unix runs on pertty much all instruction sets.

I can understand why Yoshi-P wants to get a PS3 version of ARR released, but at the same time, I don't want to see the PC version of the game get held back and suffer later on down the line because of updates having to accommodate both ports.

Inb4 "PS3 limitations" :rolleyes:

Pretty sure Yoshi-P or Wada or somebody already answered this a while back. First off, the promise was made to Sony that the game would be on the PS3 and SE has that commitment to uphold. Secondly, it was stated that SE wanted it on a system that was already widely owned/used as opposed to a system that was fairly new which many people had not purchased yet. Also, as i understand it the console gaming market in Japan is bigger than the PC gaming market. Links containing the gist of all this are somewhere around here.

But in any case, i really don't want another incantation of PS limitations as happened in XI. Seeing that the new XI ex pack won't be available for PS2 gives me hope, lol.