Xbox one FF14 not coming anytime soon

[Wildsprite]

I am kinda glad xbox on isn't getting it, once they get rid of the ps3 support we don't need another low ball console dragging it down even further with limitations.

by this reasoning they should get rid of the PS4 support as well since its specs are nearly identicle to the XB One

[Kosmos992k]

by this reasoning they should get rid of the PS4 support as well since its specs are nearly identicle to the XB One

Apart from a GPU with 50% more GPU cores and GDDR5 memory....both of which are pretty significant differences in specification from the Xbox One. If you drop the whole console vs console and compare the two systems side by side as if they were PCs, the Xbox One doesn't look quite so nearly identical.

How many game copies are actually in a unit? I've never really got why it's "Units Sold" instead of copies sold.

1

They use 'unit sales' because it literally means single units sold, not bundles, combined units, multi-packs or anything else. This isn't jargon that is unique to games, it's business/marketing jargon used when analyzing shipment or sales data.

[Wildsprite]

Apart from a GPU with 50% more GPU cores and GDDR5 memory....both of which are pretty significant differences in specification from the Xbox One. If you drop the whole console vs console and compare the two systems side by side as if they were PCs, the Xbox One doesn't look quite so nearly identical.

my point is, the xb one isn't a lowball system that would hold back the game anymore than the PS4 is also GDDR5 isn't that much of a difference since it still has to perfom with the bus of the system.

[Kosmos992k]

my point is, the xb one isn't a lowball system that would hold back the game anymore than the PS4 is also GDDR5 isn't that much of a difference since it still has to perfom with the bus of the system.

You might want to review the system bus bandwidth of the PS4 to that in the XB1. Don't include the EDRAM, it's neither a fair, nor appropriate comparison, it would be rather like comparing apples and oranges to lemon seeds. I wasn't arguing XB1 is a lowball system, nor that it would be unable to cope.

However, if you want , we can argue the hardware into the ground here. GDDR5 is faster and has better bandwidth than the main memory in XB1, the system bus in PS4 is a single united bus, and is faster than XB1, the GPU in PS4 has 50% more compute units that the one in XB1. XB1 has EDRAM in the GPU that provides very high bandwidth for what is effectively an enhanced frame buffer. The GPU is clocked 5% higher in XB1 which helps offset the smaller number of compute units compared to PS4. MS requires exclusivity for online play, Sony does not. XBL subscriptions are required for online play on XB1, PS Plus is not mandatory (PSN is only needed to verify your login and license), it is up to the publisher. etc...

None of that matters because as the PS3 shows, even an 8 year old console with a 10+ year old design can run the game, so it would be foolish to complain that XB1 would hold back FFXIV (assuming it ever had the game on it), when clearly it currently would not. However the salient points here are not at all relating to the hardware or whether one console is better than the other, no, they relate to the business practice of Microsoft with regard to XBL, XB1 cross platform games and exclusivity. MS has always demanded far stricture exclusivity than Sony, they have always demanded that XBL Gold is required for online play and that all subs and in-game purchases are performed through their system. They (MS) have always demanded platform exclusivity or segregation because it would clearly be the end of the world if PlayStation and Xbox gamers were allowed to play together. Those are the sticking points, not the hardware, and not the console wars or any thing like that.

You talk like the developers would actually put in the money and effort required to push high end PCs to the max if consoles weren't a thing, they wouldn't. They can't even be assed to give us high resolution textures.

Devs are always foolish to put the money and effort into pushing the bleeding edge of the PC platform because it ignores the majority of their customers. What's the point of making a game that requires high end PCs to perform adequately? Oh, wait, we already have an example of a game that did this...and failed. It was called FFXIV v1.X...

Devs are always better served by aiming for the mid-point of the platform capability available, and ensuring that their game performs adequately on the lowest common denominator platform.

No they aren't, Xbox one has gimp specs, its why its doing poorly in sales to begin with they low balled the system.**snip**
And the name should of been called the X-1 get rid of the box.

It's specs aren't gimped, basically it has a weaker GPU and less system bandwidth, but neither are game breakers.

MS can't use "X-1", the ever craptastic ComCast has that trademarked already for their "X-1 Operating System" used on their cable boxes.

[Colorful]

Devs are always foolish to put the money and effort into pushing the bleeding edge of the PC platform because it ignores the majority of their customers. What's the point of making a game that requires high end PCs to perform adequately? Oh, wait, we already have an example of a game that did this...and failed. It was called FFXIV v1.X...

Devs are always better served by aiming for the mid-point of the platform capability available, and ensuring that their game performs adequately on the lowest common denominator platform.

Experienced developers allow games to run on a multitude of systems, both low and high end while looking great on the high end scale and alright on the lower end. The best example I can think of MGSV, that game scales absolutely amazingly on almost anything you throw at it, including integrated graphics. I don't believe many games can make that claim. 1.0 is a prime example of how to do it horribly wrong, while yes, things did have decent textures and a high polygon count, that game (imho) looked like trash. It was bland and boring, watching YouTube videos of it and the world is just so empty and ugly, it even looks worse than World of Warcraft's newer areas! 2.0 beats it in stylistic choices and artistic vision 10 fold, but when you have both you can a game that's both impressive technically and artistically (the Witcher 3 for example). I don't expect them to overhaul the game, but why is HD textures too much to ask for? Everything is created in extremely high resolutions after all, and they still have them stored somewhere.

But that wasn't my point to begin with, the Xbox One and PS4 wouldn't be "holding the game back" as the developers would not push the game past that point to begin with.

[Kosmos992k]

But that wasn't my point to begin with, the Xbox One and PS4 wouldn't be "holding the game back" as the developers would not push the game past that point to begin with.

Indeed, I mis-read your post - reading too fast. I agree.

[Colorful]

Apart from a GPU with 50% more GPU cores and GDDR5 memory....both of which are pretty significant differences in specification from the Xbox One. If you drop the whole console vs console and compare the two systems side by side as if they were PCs, the Xbox One doesn't look quite so nearly identical.

Regardless of that, they're not going to overhaul the game when PS3 support is dropped. Xbox One is more than capable of running the game as is, but if we're looking specifically at limitations, then yes, both the Xbox One and PS4 would be limiting factors, obviously not to the extent of the PS3 though. But if they did want to make something very impressive (such as proper hair physics, AMD TressFX/Nvidia HairWorks) that would never happen as it's incredibly costly to develop and if only 10% of the playerbase could use it (high end PCs, but even then my high-end PC struggles with HairWorks due to Nvidia making it CPU bound on AMD hardware).

[Kosmos992k]

Regardless of that, they're not going to overhaul the game when PS3 support is dropped.

Clearly they won't. My point was not that the XB1 would be incapable of running the game as is, but rather that it would represent more of a liability than PS4 would in the longer run. However, in the longer run, all platforms age and all older or lower spec platforms become a liability in the end.

But if by the time we get to 4.0 or 5.0 there is a new generation of console hardware and MS relents in it's policies we could easily see the new version of the game on newer hardware with a wider audience. That would be the ideal outcome in my mind, because more players = more life = more subs = better game. If MS changed their mind and SE shipped FFXIV on XB1 by Christmas, it would be a great thing IMHO, for the reason I outlined above, more players is a good thing. So long as you get those additional players without fragmenting the players by platform.

[Zeonx]

by this reasoning they should get rid of the PS4 support as well since its specs are nearly identicle to the XB One

No they aren't, Xbox one has gimp specs, its why its doing poorly in sales to begin with they low balled the system.

Which was there mistake because of their red ring of death fiasco and wanted to gain trust, they should of made their system a power house and well they fell short and that wasn't the only thing, the price, the way they were handling their games with downloaded cd's and they become useless no sharing, which was a huge mistake.

And the name should of been called the X-1 get rid of the box.

Last but not least, the only reason they started to get sales, is they dropped the price and added backwards compatible though Sony says they cant do that with ps4, I am sure they can and if X-1 started to get the jump on we would probably see a slim model backwards compat with price drop.

[Wildsprite]

No they aren't, Xbox one has gimp specs, its why its doing poorly in sales to begin with they low balled the system.

the specs of the system are never a factor here.
the reason the sales are/were poor(though I suspect not as poorly as you think) is because of the DRM BS and the supposid requirement for Kinect to always be on. yes MS recinded on this but still, people feel Microsoft lied to them and lost trust in them.
second take a better look at those specs they aren't as gimp as you think they are. both the PS4 and XB-1 have midrange PC specs that are infact close enough that the few tiny advantages of the PS4 mean very little. it is the games that make the biggest difference. in the end if MS managed to get the best exclusives on their system they would have taken the lead despite what you think.

Last but not least, the only reason they started to get sales, is they dropped the price and added backwards compatible though Sony says they cant do that with ps4, I am sure they can and if X-1 started to get the jump on we would probably see a slim model backwards compat with price drop.

the price drop came from them removing Kinect from the package. it was deemed by the guy who took over the xbox team the accessory itself was too expensive with too little support. though adding backward compatibility was a smart move I'm sure even you can agree with.

what you make yourself out with your post is a fanboi. fanboi's are pretty much gullible morons, in most cases they actually believe the company cares about them. I have news for you. the only reason sony does anything is for money. they couldn't care less about you.

anyway this isnt a PS4 vs XB-1 thread.