They should scrap the PS3 version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenaku

Yoshi-p said that he going to keep updating the look of FFXIV for the PC version. Which mean a high end PC today can play max setting maybe in 2-4years it can only play med setting.

---

Understood but he likely just means improved assets for the PC version, higher quality shaders, more detailed, larger textures.

This doesn't mean they are going to be able to add assets though. They can add zones no problem (big reason why the seamless design was scrapped so that they can get this running on the PS3) but they are not going to be able to add very many more common assets (eg player weapons and armor) because they would need to be added to both version and there simply isn't enough memory on the PS3 to do so. They -might- be able to do some creative texture swapping with some LOD tricks like UE3 does but more model variation is going to be out of the question.

Now they might be budgeting memory on the current version for another expansion maybe two so they can add a handful of new item looks, but it is without question already impacting design decisions in ARR. No variation of animations across races for example and the relatively small zones are already an example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ladon

Understood but he likely just means improved assets for the PC version, higher quality shaders, more detailed, larger textures.

This doesn't mean they are going to be able to add assets though. They can add zones no problem (big reason why the seamless design was scrapped so that they can get this running on the PS3) but they are going to be able to add very many more common assets (eg player weapons and armor) because they would need to be added to both version and there simply isn't enough memory on the PS3 to do so. They -might- be able to do some creative texture swapping with some LOD tricks like UE3 does but more model variation is going to be out of the question.

Now they might be budgeting memory on the current version for another expansion maybe two so they can add a handful of new item looks, but it is without question already impacting design decisions in ARR. No variation of animations across races for example and the relatively small zones are already an example.

---

When you talking about memory are you talking about the RAM on the ps3 or the HDD?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ladon

They are already expressed concerns with the limited memory on the PS3 just getting the first ARR version up and running. It does not bode well for the future of the game already as now they are forced into a parity with the PS3 in this area. I fully expect simple re-textures and recolors of current gear when adding future gear now because of this, just like with FF11.

---

Memory limitations is why zones are split into smaller parts, because PS3 can't load a whole region in its RAM.
If you think animations will be the problems, you're deliberately forgetting that FF XIV has very few different animations , especially compared to some offline games...that run perfectly on PS3.

The numbers of characters on screen will also be fewer on the PS3, but it isn't really an issue, cause you'll never have hundreds of mobs and players anywhere besides towns where you don't need to be focused.

EDIT : By the way, everybody remembers the "Sorry, no new animation on FFXI because of PS2 limitations"
Guess what...we've been treated new weapon skills with totally different animations...and the PS2 can display it, what a shock !
Without even considering all the new designs for armors and monster that we had throughout the years and still have with the next expansion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenaku

When you talking about memory are you talking about the RAM on the ps3 or the HDD?

---

RAM. The M is for memory.

For those not aware how this works I'll try a simple explanation. When a zone 'loads' it is moving all needed graphic assets (models, textures, lighting info etc) to RAM. Basically there are two types of assets, local assets and common assets. Local assets are pretty much the environment and NPCs that are present in the current zone. These can change as you zone as Limsa is going to have a different local asset set as Gridania. Adding a bunch of zones isn't a problem since you just have to make sure the current zone fits into memory and you don't need the assets from another zone loaded.

The second type of assets are common assets. These are the assets that are going to cause problems with the PS3 version. Common assets are assets that must always be loaded along with the local assets. These assets are things such as player models, armor textures, weapon textures, animations, etc. You have to load ALL of these along with every zone into memory because there is a possibility of any combination of them being needed to display since players can have any number of gear configurations on the various races. Common assets are only going to be able to get so big before they no longer can fit in the PS3 memory along with the local assets. So they are going to have to limit these as it is expected all items in the PC version are present in the PS3 version.

Quote:

---

EDIT : By the way, everybody remembers the "Sorry, no new animation on FFXI because of PS2 limitations"
Guess what...we've been treated new weapon skills with totally different animations...and the PS2 can display it, what a shock !
Without even considering all the new designs for armors and monster that we had throughout the years and still have with the next expansion.

---

FFXI used a simple animation system in comparison to what ARR is using. ARR animation data is magnitudes larger than FFXI animation data so adding one in ARR requires a LOT more resources than in did in FFXI. Added FFXI armor design was also mostly just texture recolors and again the assets were MUCH smaller. The problem here is that assist RAM requirements for ARR have grown MUCH larger in comparison to the increase in available RAM on the PS3 compared to asset sizes on the PS2 and its available RAM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClausL

I just finished watching the "Tour of Eorzea" video. They should really consider scrapping the PS3 version.

There was so much screen tearing and the frame rate was plain horrible. "We're bringing in the guys from Sony" doesn't give me much hope.

If they try to actually sell that for money, it will just piss even more fans off.

Who else agrees they should give up on the PS3 version? Release ARR for PC and perhaps consider a future PS4 release. :confused:

---

If we're trying to think realisticly then realisticly the game should have been shut down when it was originally deemed a flopped but they didn't. They kept working at it, it got better and FFXIV: ARR could very well stand to be a higly successful MMO.

SE and Yoshi proves that something like this can be done despite the means being unrealistic. The Ps3 is no exception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alhanelem

declaring someone "doesn't know what they're talking about" doesn't make it so.

---

No. Your misguided arguments make it so.

Quote:

---

It is a completely FITting example. You are just in denial.

---

It doesn't fit because the lead platforms are switched. It's a very basic and understandable concept.

Quote:

---

The game's assets are not the problem. Lack of memory and lack of hard disk space on a fixed platform were the problem. There were tons of things they couldn't do with the game purely because they had used up all the memory of the PS2 already.

---

That's because the PS2 was the *lead development platform*. having the inferior platform as the lead development platform forces the developer to be held to the lowest common denominator. Having the superior platform as the lead simply does not.

Quote:

---

That's all well and good but why bother releasing an inferior version?

---

Because it opens the game to an IMMENSELY BIGGER fanbase than that of PC gamers (and one that is very sensitive to the Final Fantasy franchise at it), meaning more players, more profits, and more support on the long run. Again. Basic principle.

It's a principle called: 70+ million potential customers worldwide.

Quote:

---

A PC capable of running the game doesn't cost much more than a game console.

---

Only twice as much on the bare minimum. Sorry, but you're running out of excuses.

Quote:

---

My point about MMORPGs needing an upgradable platform is completely ON the mark.

---

You saying so doesn't make it so. You've been told why it's off mark, and you really have no argument.

The PS3 can't limit PC in any way. Several people, including Yoshida, already explained it to you. You seem to think to know better, but hello? You don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Memory limitations is why zones are split into smaller parts, because PS3 can't load a whole region in its RAM.

---

Nope. Zones have been split to reduce load on the servers. It has nothing to do with memory limitations, as assets are streamed. Games don't need to load all the assets of a zone into the ram anymore. if it did, even 4 gigs wouldn't nearly be enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

Nope. Zones have been split to reduce load on the servers. It has nothing to do with memory limitations, as assets are streamed. Games don't need to load all the assets of a zone into the ram anymore. if it did, even 4 gigs wouldn't nearly be enough.

---

That's part of it but there are methods to deal with this in a seamless world as well. They were also obviously split to deal with memory limitations as well.

Also you can't really stream the assets of a MMO or any online game for that matter very well because it's too expensive to keep track of what you would need to server side so that the client is able to stream in the asset before it is displayed. Streaming is only realistic when each display frame is predictable. MMOs are anything but this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ladon

That's part of it. They were also obviously split to deal with memory limitations.

Also you can't really stream the assets of a MMO or any online game for that matter very well because it's too expensive to keep track of what you would need to server side so that the client is able to stream in the asset before it is displayed. Streaming is only realistic when each display frame is predictable. MMOs are anything but this.

---

Almost all modern MMORPGs do it without a single problem. Streaming the assets is very possible, and in *very few games* each display frame is predictable.

There's absolutely no way all the assets for a zone can be fully stored in the ram of even most PCs, even more so on the much more limited video ram. Most modern MMOS are designed to be able to run on cards with 512 Mb.

The lesser predictability of a MMORPG (that isn't even so relevant, because the only really unpredictable assets are player character assets, that of course have nothing to do with zones) can be addressed by raising the level of pre-streaming.

Server load is the whole picture.

Quote:

---

It doesn't fit because the lead platforms are switched. It's a very basic and understandable concept.

---

Your argument is centered around "the lead platforms are switched." Yes, this is a "basic" and "understandable" concept, however, your argument is still flawed.

That really doesn't matter. Even if the "main" version isn't held back, the other versions still are, and you still end up buying a new console later to keep playing when support is dropped. The problem of "we can't do this" is less pronounced, but problems still exist- Problems that would never happen if the game wasn't released on those non-upgradable platforms in the first place.

Quote:

---

You saying so doesn't make it so. You've been told why it's off mark, and you really have no argument.

---

Wrong. I told you why it is ON the mark, and I do have an argument- which I spent a 10 mile long post explaining, and have continued to elaborate on there.

Quote:

---

Nope. Zones have been split to reduce load on the servers. It has nothing to do with memory limitations, as assets are streamed.

---

They are both factors. Yes, assets are streamed, but there is still non-asset (assets meaning art/sounds/models/etc) information that needs to be tracked and loaded. The larger the area, the more of that information is present, regardless of currently loaded assets. Beyond that, larger areas expoentially increase the amount of CPU time needed for AI pathfinding- a topic that SE expanded on quite a bit in interviews. Smaller areas was both to accomodate the PS3 but also to optimize and improve for PC. Kind of a shame as I liked the semi-seamless world but you win some you lose some- Since that isn't just about PS3 limitations (though it is partially), I'm not as bothered by it.

It is udeniably much easier to make a game for a single platform that is well suited to the needs of the game than to sprawl out and put the game on as many other platforms as possible, many of which are not as well suited to the kind of game this is.

Yes, expanding to more platforms increases the number of people you can reach. But if the game is of poorer quality on those platforms, you risk alienating those people and then they won't even buy the PC version because they'll assume it's just as bad.

Quote:

---

Only twice as much on the bare minimum. Sorry, but you're running out of excuses.

---

Deluxe Wii U is $350. I can probably build a PC without a monitor (connect it to the TV) that can run the game for that price or a little more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

Almost all modern MMORPGs do it without a single problem. Streaming the assets is very possible, and in *very few games* each display frame is predictable.

There's absolutely no way all the assets for a zone can be fully stored in the ram of even most PCs, even more so on the much more limited video ram. Most modern MMOS are designed to be able to run on cards with 512 Mb.

The lesser predictability of a MMORPG (that isn't even so relevant, because the only really unpredictable assets are player character assets, that of course have nothing to do with zones) can be addressed by raising the level of pre-streaming.

Server load is the whole picture.

---

You can't stream common assets, this is why games have minimum memory requirements to begin with. You could stream local assets but you'd still need to keep your common asset memory size constant for performance reasons.

Also I don't really see any evidence the ARR engine is streaming any assets except LOD. That will save on mipmapping memory requirements and nothing much else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ladon

You can't stream common assets, this is why games have minimum memory requirements to begin with. You could stream local assets but you'd still need to keep your common asset memory size constant for performance reasons.

Also I don't really see any evidence the ARR engine is streaming any assets except LOD. That will save on mipmapping memory requirements and nothing much else.

---

Which is exactly why memory restrictions have absolutely nothing to do with the reduction of the zone size. Zones have a theme, and even if they're not tiled anymore they use pretty much the same assets fitting that theme all over the zone. Having a zone even twice as big wouldn't cause many more assets to be loaded whether it's streaming or not, unless the theme changed radically from one side to the other, and it doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alhanelem

Your argument is centered around "the lead platforms are switched." Yes, this is a "basic" and "understandable" concept, however, your argument is still flawed.

---

It's not just MY argument. It's also Yoshida's argument, and if you think you know better then him, I'm sure you'll forgive me if i have a laugh.

Quote:

---

That really doesn't matter. Even if the "main" version isn't held back, the other versions still are

---

And? It doesn't matter of the PS3 version is held back. That's the problem of PS3 players. I'm sure they'll have no problem deciding between not playing the game at all and playing it with lesser graphics.

Quote:

---

and you still end up buying a new console later to keep playing when support is dropped.

---

There's no reason to believe that support will be dropped any time soon.

Quote:

---

The problem of "we can't do this" is less pronounced, but problems still exist- Problems that would never happen if the game wasn't released on those non-upgradable platforms in the first place.

---

Nope. The problem does not exist, as most assets can be downgraded with a single click activating a batch operation and ALL assets can be downgraded in general to fit.

Quote:

---

Wrong. I told you why it is ON the mark, and I do have an argument- which I spent a 10 mile long post explaining, and have continued to elaborate on there.

---

Your post being 10 mile long doesn't make it any less misguided and misleading. It's just misguided and misleading for 10 miles.

Cry as much as you want, but the PS3 version is here to stay, and PC gamers that actually know how this works have nothing to worry about it.

Quote:

---

Cry as much as you want, but the PS3 version is here to stay, and PC gamers that actually know how this works have nothing to worry about it.

---

You're right, it is here to stay. I'm not crying- I'm simply posing a logical argument about what would be better for the game- regardless of whether or not it will actually happen.

Quote:

---

Nope. The problem does not exist, as assets can be downgraded with a single click activating a batch operation.

---

The problem does exist. batch-downgrading assets doesn't solve the issue at hand.

Quote:

---

There's no reason to believe that support will be dropped any time soon.

---

Who said anything about soon? It took 10 years of FFXI before PS2 support began the process of being dropped in FFXI. It *will* happen, eventually. Then you'll have a million threads bitching about the support drop and how "we're still customers too" and "we shouldn't have to buy a new console to play the game" - and on that last part, I agree- if only they bought a PC, it would have lasted longer before even needing upgrades, and you could perform those upgrades for less than buying a new console.

Quote:

---

And? It doesn't matter of the PS3 version is held back. That's the problem of PS3 players.

---

A problem that is better solved by not having the PS3 version at all- The extra customers aren't worth it when they become disgruntled squeaky wheels years down the road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alhanelem

You're right, it is here to stay. I'm not crying- I'm simply posing a logical argument about what would be better for the game- regardless of whether or not it will actually happen.

---

Only, your argument doesn't include much logic and especially it doesn't include much knowledge about the topic at hand.

Quote:

---

The problem does exist. batch-downgrading assets doesn't solve the issue at hand.

---

Only it does. That's how you fit a game from a superior platform into an inferior one.

Quote:

---

Who said anything about soon? It took 10 years of FFXI before PS2 support began the process of being dropped in FFXI. It *will* happen, eventually. Then you'll have a million threads bitching about the support drop and how "we're still customers too" and "we shouldn't have to buy a new console to play the game"

---

It's not my responsibility to worry about bitching nor is yours. FFXI is still alive and kicking, despite the bitches. This is a technical discussion, not a discussion about people bitching because maybe, who knows, support for their platform will be dropped several years from now.

Quote:

---

- and on that last part, I agree- if only they bought a PC, it would have lasted longer before even needing upgrades, and you could perform those upgrades for less than buying a new console.

---

Not everyone wants to bother with all the additional work a PC brings. Which is why consoles have a bigger installed base than gaming PC. A lot of people just want to put the disc in and play and bringing in that *massive* playerbase can only be good for PC players as well.

The more money a game makes, the more it'll be supported, on all platforms.

Quote:

---

Not everyone wants to bother with all the additional work a PC brings. Which is why consoles have a bigger installed base than gaming PC.

---

Actually, that's not true. PCs have a larger install base in North America and Europe. Only in Japan do they have a larger install base- largely because Japan is a highly populated area and many households are small in space don't have the space for a PC.

Even the most rudimentary PC bought today can play many games out there.

Quote:

---

Only it does. That's how you fit a game from a superior platform into an inferior one.

---

The only way to fit a game from a superior platform to an inferior one is to make the game inferior on that platform. I would not release my product on any platform where I can not assure the highest quality over time.

Quote:

---

It's not my responsibility to worry about bitching. FFXI is still alive and kicking, despite the bitches.

---

Nobody said you had a responsibility. that doesn't mean this is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alhanelem

Actually, that's not true. PCs have a larger install base in North America and Europe. Only in Japan do they have a larger install base- largely because Japan is a highly populated area and many households are small in space don't have the space for a PC.

Even the most rudimentary PC bought today can play many games out there.

---

Which is why I said GAMING PC. Sure. There are a whole lot of PCs out there with integrated intel graphics card. Guess what? They won't run ARR, even more so because their owners are not gamers and can't care the less about Final Fantasy.

The installed base of the PS3 in the hands of actual gamers is much larger.

Quote:

---

The only way to fit a game from a superior platform to an inferior one is to make the game inferior on that platform. I would not release my product on any platform where I can not assure the highest quality over time.

---

That's your personal problem, and has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Quote:

---

Nobody said you had a responsibility. that doesn't mean this is a good thing.

---

Again. The more money a game makes, the more it'll be supported, on all platforms. And yes, it's a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

Which is exactly why memory restrictions have absolutely nothing to do with the reduction of the zone size. Zones have a theme, and even if they're not tiled anymore they use pretty much the same assets fitting that theme all over the zone. Having a zone even twice as big wouldn't cause many more assets to be loaded whether it's streaming or not, unless the theme changed radically from one side to the other, and it doesn't.

---

Yes they do. As I said, the only evidence of stream we have are LOD assets (as per the benchmark for example) also the PS3 videos shown so far don't show any of the typical artifacts that would be present if the game was streaming local assets.

This means that it is highly unlikely that ARR engine supports asset stream as say UE3 might. This is also why it makes sense that zone size is restrictive as it is. Your zone size itself has no impact on network performance. From the network side, the main reason they went with a zoning system is that they can hard cap the amount of players that are in any given zone and this allows them to determine a solid capacity number they can work with.

It's far more likely that zone size is a product of assets they can load in a given area and if you start stretching your assets thin then you end up with the old 1.0, cut-n-paste and barren areas which I am sure they wanted to avoid at all costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

the "PS2 limitations" part I guess refers to Final Fantasy XI, which is an entirely different animal. The PS2 limited the PC in FFXI because the game was created for the PS2 and then ported to the PC. There was little upgrading that could be done without redesigning the assets completely, so the PC version didn't look too stellar.

On the other hand FFXIV is developed with PC as the lead platform, which means the PS3 version doesn't limit the PC version at all.

They could run on a completely different graphics engnine and still work together seamlessly online as the only necessary common denominator is the data flow. All the graphical assets are client side. As long as the assets that offer a level of interaction with the players are in the same position, the PC version could have gorgeous green grass made of 212232 polygons per blade and the PS3 version could have purple grass made of cubes and it'd change absolutely nothing functionality-wise.

Again, the PS3 version doesn't "limit" the PC version in any way.

---

This!

Everyone should keep in mind that FFXIV was designed with the whole "console version limits the PC version" thing in mind. While the console version will have its own limitations, it won't affect the PC version in any way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ladon

Yes they do. As I said, the only evidence of stream we have are LOD assets (as per the benchmark for example) also the PS3 videos shown so far don't show any of the typical artifacts that would be present if the game was streaming local assets.

This means that it is highly unlikely that ARR engine supports asset stream as say UE3 might.

---

ARR's engine is based on Luminous, that does support asset streaming.

Quote:

---

This is also why it makes sense that zone size is restrictive as it is. Your zone size itself has no impact on network performance. From the network side, the main reason they went with a zoning system is that they can hard cap the amount of players that are in any given zone and this allows them to determine a solid capacity number they can work with.

---

It's not just that. If you have smaller zones and your content is well spread, your population will automatically be spread between more zones, resulting in less traffic per server in the cluster.

Quote:

---

It's far more likely that zone size is a product of assets they can load in a given area and if you start stretching your assets thin then you end up with the old 1.0, cut-n-paste and barren areas which I am sure they wanted to avoid at all costs.

---

They don't need to stretch anything thin. Even if the areas aren't cut and paste, every game has themed texture packages. If you look at every ARR video and the benchmark you'll see that textures and models are kept consistent throughout a zone. They just aren't arranged in larger tiles for ease of placing like 1.0 did.

Which means that it doesn't really matter if a zone is 10000 square feet or 40000. The assets are still pretty much the same. They are just repeated in a much more clever and less sloppy way than they were in 1.0.

Quote:

---

That's your personal problem, and has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

---

On the contrary, it has everything to do with the subject at hand, because the quality of the game is the whole point of this debate- People who don't want the PS3 version to exist don't want it to exist because it will bring down the quality of the game- at the very least for the people who buy the lesser version.

You do not need 8347265873465873465 players to have a successful MMO- better to have a quality experience on one platform than a lesser quality experience on several. As long as the game is profitable, it will be supported. Everquest is still running after all these years- Does it have a huge playerbase? No. Does it make money? Yes. Therefore, it keeps running.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alhanelem

On the contrary, it has everything to do with the subject at hand, because the quality of the game is the whole point of this debate- People who don't want the PS3 version to exist don't want it to exist because it will bring down the quality of the game- at the very least for the people who buy the lesser version.

---

LOL. People that don't want the PS3 version do so just because of an irrational fear that it will hold back the PC version, as many posts on this thread demonstrate.

It has nothing to do with the quality of the PS3 version, that we didn't see yet anyway. if you're not a PS3 gamer you have no place deciding for them if they should prefer playing the game with a quality that fits their console or not playing it at all.

Quote:

---

You do not need 8347265873465873465 players to have a successful MMO- better to have a quality experience on one platform than a lesser quality experience on several. As long as the game is profitable, it will be supported. Everquest is still running after all these years- Does it have a huge playerbase? No. Does it make money? Yes. Therefore, it keeps running.

---

The more paying players you have, the higher your budget, the more you can spend on the game, the higher quality you can push. The more you can afford spreading your target further with more localizations, more platforms, more content, allowing the game to grow upon itself. This is an iron-clad equation.

It's the difference between a game that survives and a game that thrives. You seem to want the game to merely survive. Obviously that's a completely illogical standpoint.

The PS3 launch provides a new audience with which to sell the game to. It would have been a lot harder to justify making 2.0 if they only had the pc crowd to deal with. (As in, those that have played 1.0 and have made their judgements already.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alhanelem

This is irrelevant. No MMO, final fantasy or otherwise, should be released on consoles. Also, just because a franchise is historically released on one platform, doesn't mean that can't change- it in fact has changed many times, both for Square Enix and many other developers.

The reason is simple. Virtually all MMOs demand an extendable, upgradable platform, because the games themselves are extended and upgraded over time. Such games should not be released on platforms not capable of that. This isn't about being a PC fanboi, it's about simple facts and reality. Look no further than FFXI and PS2 limitations for the prime example of why an MMO should not be on a console. I have owned every Nintendo console ever made except the virtual boy; I don't hate consoles. But certain kinds of games are not well suited to them.

---

The only limitation that I'm aware of, and I could be wrong, is the PS2's HDD capacity. Other than that FFXI could've still continued on the PS2. Having an MMO available for consoles hits a wide range of consumers that may not have normally picked up the game had it been for PC only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ladon

From the network side, the main reason they went with a zoning system is that they can hard cap the amount of players that are in any given zone and this allows them to determine a solid capacity number they can work with.

---

That's funny. I thought this was why they went to a zoning system:

"The current maps in FINAL FANTASY XIV are not only massive, but allow for seamless passage across wide expanses of the realm. In order to maintain this seamlessness, however, we were forced to heavily reuse assets, resulting in static, repetitive areas.
To provide our users with areas that feel fresh and dynamic throughout the extended lifespan of the game, we are both revamping and redesigning area maps. We hope that this, in turn, will equate to increased opportunities for adventure."

"・Abolishing seamless areas to allow for more dynamic map design"

Quoted from the first FFXIV:ARR Roadmap
Link below:

http://gdl.square-enix.com/ffxiv/dow...Outline_EN.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demacus

The only limitation that I'm aware of, and I could be wrong, is the PS2's HDD capacity. Other than that FFXI could've still continued on the PS2. Having an MMO available for consoles hits a wide range of consumers that may not have normally picked up the game had it been for PC only.

---

If I'm not mistaken the HDD that came with FFXI was 120gigs. FFXI when I left was only ~25gigs. So the HDD limitations are not really valid unless the PS2 game was way bigger then that.

really you must be new or don't care to follow much of the news as everyone said they not done yet!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alhanelem

On the contrary, it has everything to do with the subject at hand, because the quality of the game is the whole point of this debate- People who don't want the PS3 version to exist don't want it to exist because it will bring down the quality of the game- at the very least for the people who buy the lesser version.

---

Are you saying that people who choose to buy the lesser quality version, in this case the PS3 version, will be upset for doing so? While I will not disagree that there are probably people who are like that I would say to them that they should have bought the PC version instead. However, I dont thing this is the case. My wife has been thinking about playing ARR when it is released. With only one computer in the house the PS3 is an option for her. I know that for alot of us who own a nice gaming PC, we like to see how high of a benchmark score we can get, or how many FPS we have when running at max settings, but for alot of players none of this matters. (Dont get me wrong, Im an old school gamer. I could still go back and play the original Zelda and love it) Graphics is really the only big difference between the two versions and for some players, like my wife, they could care less. The core of what makes this game is still the same core that we all love. So I just dont see how having a "lesser version" would cause problems.

Quote:

---

You do not need 8347265873465873465 players to have a successful MMO- better to have a quality experience on one platform than a lesser quality experience on several. As long as the game is profitable, it will be supported. Everquest is still running after all these years- Does it have a huge playerbase? No. Does it make money? Yes. Therefore, it keeps running.

---

I dont understand what you mean by having a lesser quality experience on several platforms. Are you saying that because the PS3 version exists that its going to bring down the quality of your PC playing experience? Please explain. In your previous comment you said that the lesser quality experience would at the very least only affect the people who buy the lesser version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClausL

I just finished watching the "Tour of Eorzea" video. They should really consider scrapping the PS3 version.

---

http://nooooooooooooooo.com/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wilksha

If I'm not mistaken the HDD that came with FFXI was 120gigs. FFXI when I left was only ~25gigs. So the HDD limitations are not really valid unless the PS2 game was way bigger then that.

---

I was curious about this myself, as the game is apparently still being supported on PS2 in Japan, just not in the US. Either way the PS2 hasn't really limited FFXI if its still being supported in other countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alhanelem

On the contrary, it has everything to do with the subject at hand, because the quality of the game is the whole point of this debate- People who don't want the PS3 version to exist don't want it to exist because it will bring down the quality of the game- at the very least for the people who buy the lesser version.

---

Would you prefer SE remove the FFXIV configuration program and force players to play with the highest specs simply because you think less powerful PC will "bring down the quality of the game" ?

Soon, PS3-reluctant-players will say "People will less than 6000 on the benchmark, you're not allowed to play the game cause you're spoiling our fun !!!"

I think people are really unaware of the way things are in Japan. The reason ffxi is still on ps2 in japan is because its still a huge part of the player base. Having this game on ps3/ps4 will be a huge bump not a minor one.

People always need something to complain about.

It's threads like these that make me question the sobriety of the OP.

Should they have made a PS3 version? (And I mean, should that decision have been made back before 2010?) Probably not, but they promised everyone a PS3 version and they can't back out without disappointing, and losing, a lot of fans. You should appreciate how many promises they're trying to keep, given how many SE has broken in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Would you prefer SE remove the FFXIV configuration program and force players to play with the highest specs simply because you think less powerful PC will "bring down the quality of the game" ?

Soon, PS3-reluctant-players will say "People will less than 6000 on the benchmark, you're not allowed to play the game cause you're spoiling our fun !!!"

---

Haha, gotta say, I loved this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wilksha

If I'm not mistaken the HDD that came with FFXI was 120gigs. FFXI when I left was only ~25gigs. So the HDD limitations are not really valid unless the PS2 game was way bigger then that.

---

It was a 40GB HDD. One of the problems with the PS2 HDD is that there is no way to defragment it. Also, SE had reserved a 10GB partition of said HDD for FFXI use. In order to use more space for the partition, they had to get legal permission from Sony to expand it. Which, they did last year in order to be able to have more space for future content as the partition was already reaching the space limit. The PS2 won't be supported for future expansions outside Japan, where most of the current PS2 users reside.

LOL i thought for sure this thread would have been locked by now

why is there so much crap against ps3 owners having a copy of the game? i am in full support of this cuz the larger player base is way more fun.. and besides, Final Fantasy XI is getting a new expansion

360 + PC (Ps2 is being removed)

XIV 2.0

PS3 + PC

seems fair

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClausL

I just finished watching the "Tour of Eorzea" video. They should really consider scrapping the PS3 version.

There was so much screen tearing and the frame rate was plain horrible. "We're bringing in the guys from Sony" doesn't give me much hope.

If they try to actually sell that for money, it will just piss even more fans off.

Who else agrees they should give up on the PS3 version? Release ARR for PC and perhaps consider a future PS4 release. :confused:

---

This.. I mean.. this thread.. *throws chair out the window* Upvote for ispano. Optimization and capture cards when recording ps3 footage can kill fps.

I would really hate to play with the PC community alone.. ugh, I don't even want to think about it, I've seen enough grass complaints already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokixak

It was a 40GB HDD. One of the problems with the PS2 HDD is that there is no way to defragment it. Also, SE had reserved a 10GB partition of said HDD for FFXI use. In order to use more space for the partition, they had to get legal permission from Sony to expand it. Which, they did last year in order to be able to have more space for future content as the partition was already reaching the space limit. The PS2 won't be supported for future expansions outside Japan, where most of the current PS2 users reside.

---

you can always plug it in your pc to defrag it but its running unix im guessing and that dont need to be defraged.

Quote:

---

I dont understand what you mean by having a lesser quality experience on several platforms. Are you saying that because the PS3 version exists that its going to bring down the quality of your PC playing experience? Please explain. In your previous comment you said that the lesser quality experience would at the very least only affect the people who buy the lesser version.

---

It's less that and more people getting a worse impression of the game by playing it on the PS3, not the direct effects on the PC version of the PS3 version existing (of which there are/will be very few.

One example of a ps3 concession is in the HUD- on the PC version there is a small graphical display indicating what's in your bags. In the PS3 version this graphical display is replaced with tiny icons with a number in them in order to conserve memory. This has me worried because if they badly need the tiny amount of memory it seems like that would save, what happens a few years down the road when they need to use more memory to display new information? Either that information has to not be displayed in the PS3 version (or something else in memory has to be bumped out) or a concession needs to be made in the lead platform version in order to make it work.

Quote:

---

Would you prefer SE remove the FFXIV configuration program and force players to play with the highest specs simply because you think less powerful PC will "bring down the quality of the game" ?

---

This is completely different. On the PS3, what they give you is what you get- you don't have any choice in the matter. On the PC, if you need to drop the graphics down for performance you can- In doing so, you're fully aware that if you have a better machine, it will look better. You can also upgrade your machine to enjoy the better graphics- which, again, you can't do on the PS3.

Quote:

---

you can always plug it in your pc to defrag it but its running unix im guessing and that dont need to be defraged.

---

I was under the impression that the PS2 hard drive's firmware was specifically set up to only work with a PS2 and it won't work with anything else.