So as detailed here: https://gamerescape.com/2017/05/31/a...naoki-yoshida/
Apparently the primary limitation the PS3 represented was "Load Times" and "Speed", thus why we're now getting faster ground mounts and more seamless areas.
But as far as overall restrictions and most intensive considerations on design, Yoshi-P seems quite emphatic that it's 32-bit OS' that are the big hold-back, compared to the memetic "PS3 Limitations". Anyone have further opinions on this? Think we'll see support for such systems dropped in the future outright? Just what enhancements do you suppose could be made if this were the case?
32-Bit OS: The New PS3 Limitations?
Printable View
-
06-01-2017, 06:57 AMZhaneX32-Bit OS: The New PS3 Limitations?
-
06-01-2017, 07:54 AMKisaiTenshi
I think what will happen is that PS3 players will be given an ultimatum to switch to the PS4 or PC if they want to play Stormblood, otherwise their game client will be updated to V4.0 but they will never be able to go into the Stormblood areas, they aren't optimizing it to run on it.
Faster mounts typically require MUCH faster network connections, let alone disk read time. For a different mmorpg game that I had contact with developers for, the developers could program whatever speed they wanted into arbitrary gear in the game, but if you actually ran at the speed of sound in the game, your "draw distance" and "pop-in" 's happen every 3 seconds. So you would overshoot just about everything, and because certain parts of the map aren't loaded into memory, the server basically says "your speed is zero from running into a wall" but your game client still shows you running up a mountain for 10 seconds until rubber-banding back to the wall your game client thought you phased through because it didn't load it in time.
I doubt we will have mounts that run at 800mph, but the fact is that if you move faster than the disk/memory/swap-file can catch up, you no longer get a 30fps/60fps experience, you get basically a blank screen, or empty-zone between your start point and end point, and only once you stop moving does the game load from the disk and all the characters pop in. -
06-01-2017, 07:56 AMMomomiMomi
No enhancements. PS3 was always just an excuse, and they'll just throw out a new excuse whenever people want nice things.
-
06-01-2017, 07:59 AMWildspriteNope, they are dropping support for PS3. The way they put it PS3 players won't even be able to log in after stormblood early access starts. their only choice will be to upgrade to PS4 or PC at that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by KisaiTenshi
please keep in mind dropping PS3 support was planned from the release of A Realm Reborn. They stated so many times that they would support the PS3 through 3.0 but 4.0 was not promised. -
06-01-2017, 08:19 AMZhaneXWell, that seems just a tad pessimistic. Though I can't say I disagree given Yoshida did, upon the reveal of PS3 being dropped, once respond with "We'd need a PS5 for that!" when being asked about more flowing hairstyles. But now it seems "32-bit OS" is to be the new scapegoat, rather than keep the buck on Playstation.Quote:
Originally Posted by MomomiMomi
Still, we are getting better load-in times and increased mount speed to go with it with the PS3's removal. It's nice, but does seem rather lackluster compared to how often the PS3 seemed to be used as a cause of restrictions. So now the question becomes, how often will 32-bit OS' be used as an excuse, and should the day come that support for those systems is dropped too, how many of the things it was used to excuse will actually be improved on? -
06-01-2017, 08:32 AMMomomiMomiI admit it's more pessimistic of a response than I truly believe. I'm actually playing on PS3 at the moment, and I can tell you it's a terrible experience. I'm also pretty sure it's just going to get worse. I think dropping PS3 is mostly a QA decision than anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZhaneX
But we are getting nice new UI elements that I don't think we would have gotten with PS3 because they didn't want to give a different experience to different platforms, and I'm sure there are other things. -
06-01-2017, 09:13 AMAverax
Some people still have a 32bit OS? What year is it?
-
06-01-2017, 09:29 AMVhailorI fail to see how this could possibly be the case. For example, WoW has managed to implement a Transmogrification (Glamour) log, despite being on a 32-bit client. If Blizzard can do it, why can't SE?Quote:
Originally Posted by ZhaneX
More to the point, 32-bit OSes can only hold back client-side changes. If there's really that much gated behind them, just do what many other companies have, and release a f*cking 64-bit client for those who can use it (along with the attendant benefits). It's telling, though, that nobody can really distinguish between 64-bit and 32-bit clients in the majority of cases. Sometimes, 64-bit clients are needed to handle RAM-intensive graphical splendor (like fully-modded Skyrim). Sometimes they're built to better-handle multi-core processors. But that's about it. I certainly haven't seen any other developer blaming 32-bit operating systems so as to mask their clearly-suspect programming abilities.
----------
To address your question of whether support for 32-bit systems in the future, though, I doubt it. If Microsoft had released Win10 as 64-bit only, it might make sense in a few years, but they didn't. So even people running the latest version of Windows might not have 64-bit capability. That'll make it hard for SE to assess the number of affected customers. Few serious gamers would be affected - the restriction on RAM is a deathblow for more demanding games, so 64-bit versions of Windows are required - but casual ones might be. -
06-01-2017, 09:44 AMKisaiTenshiThe problem is that every version of Windows since XP have had a 64-bit version, the only reason 32-bit versions are still available is because enterprise (business) don't like to upgrade hardware.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vhailor
So many software companies of critical things (eg the lack of 64-bit flash held back Chrome and Firefox, and only this year have the browser vendors moved to just disable it) just dragged their feet until there became more pressure to allow 64-bit security features. (Did you know that 32-bit software can have their memory space inspected by ANY other 32-bit software?) This isn't true for 64-bit software.
Firefox dragged it's feet forever to put out a 64-bit version. So did Chrome. You know who had the first 64-bit browser? Microsoft. Linux and FreeBSD have been able to build firefox and chromium in 64-bit mode since the beginning, but it was never a supported build.
Anyway, it's being dragged off topic, but the idea that "just upgrade your hardware hurrrr" doesn't fly on the PC platform, otherwise every game would only be designed for the highest-end hardware available, instead of the average. The "average" PC hardware is weaker than the PS4.
One of the other more viable reasons to terminate 32-bit software support is to make it harder for bugs to be exploited since memory randomization prevents being able to targeted. -
06-01-2017, 11:16 AMVhailorThat's not entirely true, but it is dragging off-topic a bit. Expecting users to have reasonably high-end hardware isn't equivalent to expecting them to have the highest-end hardware available. The only reason that I'd say a 32-bit OS doesn't fall into the 'reasonable expectation' category is that a lot of people still buy computers from stores, and many of those ship with 32-bit OSes. On the other hand, SE requiring 3GB of RAM for Stormblood (over the 2GB of RAM for ARR) is entirely reasonable, and they could've even put that at 4GB. Responding with a nicer form of "just upgrade your hardware hurrrr" would be entirely reasonable in that case.Quote:
Originally Posted by KisaiTenshi
As an aside, it seems like you misinterpreted my post. How, exactly, did anything you write impact, or even pertain to, my basic statement of "SE likely won't end 32-bit support because 32-bit OSes are still unfortunately prevalent"? -
06-01-2017, 12:23 PMKisaiTenshiGiven Microsoft's historical record on abandoning hardware faster than Apple, and it not being in the position to do so with the Windows operating system, Microsoft supported Windows XP for a good 16 years once you take into account that recent patch due to that recent wave of ransomware.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vhailor
Like, to be brutally honest, I wish Microsoft would just drop 32-bit support entirely and require 32GB of RAM on new systems. Throw up a "warning this software uses the 32-bit compatibility layer" warning before running 32-bit software the first time to maybe light a fire under developers butts who are dragging their heels.