So are consoles holding back this game?

[Fourbestintoner]

1.6ghz amd cpu
gpu that's supposed to be as -good- as amd 7870

No way PS4 is holding anything back, it must be an opinion.
Silky smooth unstable 20-40 fps.
Not saying PS4 support should be dropped, but don't be delusional.

[Hanayumi]

Im more curious as to what is actually being held back, what would be improved when they do drop ps3? Is it just a graphic/performance thing? Cause it feels like that's just more of a preference if anything, now if there was some kind of game play improvements and content overall then Great! But I dunno, would SE actually change there way once they do drop ps3 or will they just continue doing the normal routine...

[Klamor]

Im more curious as to what is actually being held back, what would be improved when they do drop ps3? Is it just a graphic/performance thing? Cause it feels like that's just more of a preference if anything, now if there was some kind of game play improvements and content overall then Great! But I dunno, would SE actually change there way once they do drop ps3 or will they just continue doing the normal routine...

The possibilities are pretty endless once they drop an inferior machine from their list of limitations. Basically, we can move into things like real tessellation (that thing that makes objects look less like flat textures). We can utilize processes that require a bit more computational power (watch out, dinosaurs!) and we can make way for things that require more storage space. Not just physical storage (such as the required hard disc space) but also things that require more RAM. Things such as larger, open world maps with larger draw distances that eliminate that whole instance of seeings like a forest or fortress appearing in front of you from out of nowhere. They did this back in 1.0, so there's no reason it can't be done again. They're not things that are truly game breaking, but they simply make the game more enjoyable to play because you ultimately have less breaks in between doing what you want to do. Nobody likes loading screens. Nobody has ever liked them. We should always be asking for games to push the limits of our machines, otherwise we really have no reason to have left the NES behind.

[raymon]

snip

nobody is really sure what will happen if the PS3 gets dropped (i don't want it to but its likely to happen by as early as 4.0) also 1.0 was very poorly optimized with common PCs struggling to run it.

[Klamor]

nobody is really sure what will happen if the PS3 gets dropped (i don't want it to but its likely to happen by as early as 4.0) also 1.0 was very poorly optimized with common PCs struggling to run it.

You're talking about the fact that PCs 5 years ago were struggling to run it. That's kind of the point though. Consoles are built with technology and hardware that is at least a year and a half old before the system even reaches the store shelves. I played 1.0 on an old Asus Republic of Gamers laptop with a 260M. It ran fine. I've already mentioned that there are still probably millions of people playing on ancient computers and of course games have to be designed with that in mind. However, limiting a game based on the requirements of a system that is already "old" by technology standards is exactly what the issue is at hand, and why people feel like "consoles are holding us back" with regards to the potential processes a game uses to deliver us its content.

There are plenty of games on the market today that are built with as "cutting-edge" technology as possible, and PC gamers (not the ones who simply play a given game on a PC) will often build their machines with the intent of having it powerful enough to run any given high-performance game on their rig, and to also be "future-proof" with that is expected to be released for the coming years. There's a difference between having something like the PS4, for example, saying it supports 4K resolutions (being capable of drawing the picture with reasonable refresh rate) and having a machine that is actually built specifically with the intent of 4K gaming to where it's optimized for just that.

We're getting a bit off the topic of the original post here, but it's not hard to tell that the debate of Console VS PC is related to not just what a particular machine is capable of doing right now, but what it'll be capable of supporting in the future compared to another machine.

[silentwindfr]

nobody is really sure what will happen if the PS3 gets dropped (i don't want it to but its likely to happen by as early as 4.0) also 1.0 was very poorly optimized with common PCs struggling to run it.

don't start me on the V1, Yoshida already spend countless hours to explain how it did happend. multiple language of programation, bad choice for the graphical engine.... it was a mess, that not without reason they had to rebuild the game from the ground.

and i will not bet on the 4.0 on the ps3... Yoshida have often said it... he can only promise to bring the first expansion for the ps3 after this, he refuse to hold back the game for a machine that old.

[Phyllo]

don't start me on the V1, Yoshida already spend countless hours to explain how it did happend. multiple language of programation, bad choice for the graphical engine.... it was a mess, that not without reason they had to rebuild the game from the ground.

and i will not bet on the 4.0 on the ps3... Yoshida have often said it... he can only promise to bring the first expansion for the ps3 after this, he refuse to hold back the game for a machine that old.

More like they already confirmed in a live letter that PS3 will be dropped at 4.0

[Laraul]

nobody is really sure what will happen if the PS3 gets dropped (i don't want it to but its likely to happen by as early as 4.0) also 1.0 was very poorly optimized with common PCs struggling to run it.

When 1.0 shipped it had very steep hardware requirements. The recommended specs were an Intel Core i7 @ 2.66 GHz (or better) and an GTX 460 w/ 768MB RAM, which would get you at least 30 fps @ 1280x720. The GTX 400 series had been launched just months before the game's launch. It wasn't poorly optimized. Rather it was intended to be run on very high end desktop machines less than a year old when it first came out. Perhaps they saw posts with wild hardware requirements and thought that pretty graphics would blind us.

The 1.0 developer's philosophy behind FFXIV was that any problem can be solved thru updates and patches. Something they learned over the time as they worked on FFXI. Unfortunately they ignored the changes made to the genre over they eight years since the launch of FFXI in 2002. It had evolved subsequently since then. The development team did not. Except when it came to graphics of course.

[Laraul]

No way PS4 is holding anything back, it must be an opinion.
Silky smooth unstable 20-40 fps.
Not saying PS4 support should be dropped, but don't be delusional.

Where are you getting your numbers? Maybe 20-40 fps out in the open world. But dungeon/trials/raids are more like 40-60 fps.