XIV on Switch and Xbox

[Inuk9]

More powerful than a PS3! a WiiU! Play it from anywhere in undocked mode by losing 60% of its GPU!

You don't even know WiiU/Switch specs to talk shit like that. 60% loss? lul

[ReplicaX]

You don't even know WiiU/Switch specs to talk shit like that. 60% loss? lul

The Tegra X1 reduces its clock speed to around 307MHz when "undocked".

Specs have been out there months prior to release along with tests completed using Breath of the Wild. Perhaps you believe it doesn't run on a battery in undocked mode?

How is stating released specs talking crap when they are facts?

[KarstenS]

The PS3 was not the major reason for ARR's zones being smaller than 1.0

It was not the PS3 alone. It was also the way the engine of FF14 do work.

The main issue is the low amount of memory the PS3 has.

Why is this a problem with our graphics engine?

I'm starting this with our good old WoW.

When you are in WoW, you are in very huge areas. But how does this work?

In WoW, when you are in a zone, there is a definied range (which can changed in the configuration menu) around your character that I call field of view. Everything within this range will get load into memory and then the enginge works with this. Whey you move, everything that leaves this range will get freed out of the memory and what get into range will get loaded into memory. This is called dynamic loading and it is easy to scale this to different client hardware.

When you enter FF14, the entire zone get loaded into the memory and stays in the memory until you change the zone. We have also a field of view, but only for NPCs and PCs (except S-Ranks). But in overall, its a static loading.

You see the difference?

The PS3 has build in 256 MB of RAM and this was not enough for loading the old zones completely into memory.

- Server side checks were considered in the Zone redesign as players actively engage in them which does put loads on the servers and the addition stress of the new FATE System.

Every game has alot of stuff happening. And during development you have to decide, what should be handled by the server, what you can do client side and which actions has to be confirmed by the server before the client can continue.

The last point are server checks.

The most noticeable change in the last time was around the mudras of the Ninja job.

Before the change: Every step hat do be confirmed by the server.

After the change: You can do every action without waiting for confirmation. They get transmitted to the server and the server handles the result. But you have not to wait for it while pressing buttons.

This is meant when talking about "server checks".

In 1.0 there was a very huge load of it and everything that has to get confirmed by the server belongs to network bandwith and latency. In 1.0 were so much of them, that it caused many issues because of huge network load in the datacenter, which also caused an increase of the latency. This got reduced alot during the redesign of the game.

But the zone redesign or the PS3 were no issues that belong to server checks.

- My visuals statement wasn't regarding the server at all. It specifically talked about more detailed zones and less use of texture instancing. Compared to 1.0s large zones, with few details and a massive overuse of texture instancing.

This is still an client side only thing.

[Lyraele]

Playcast for PS4 or Splashtop with the gamepad. Adjust the sensitivity for things so camera doesnt spin as fast. Works 100% fine. Have some good macros for combos you may need. That or pair a controller to it. Play that way. I use an ipad pro 9.7 with LTE. So yea, Im always online even when I shouldnt be at work. =p

Thanks! I'll have to give those a look.

[Tonkra]

Specs have been out there months prior to release along with tests completed using Breath of the Wild. Perhaps you believe it doesn't run on a battery in undocked mode?

How is stating released specs talking crap when they are facts?

Firstly: "Inuk9" is totally right.

Even the Wii U was slightly more "powerfull" than the PS3, so is the Switch slightly better as the Wii U. The Switch has 4GB RAM (wether shared with GPU / CPU or not) and the PS3 has just tiny 256 MB RAM, which is nothing.

And losing 60% in handheld mode is such an utter bullshit and #alternativeFacts. You could maybe push the power of the switch much more if the docking station would provide its own processing unit which it obviously doesnt come along with. The only thing the docking station provides is electricity. So that the coolers of the Switch are turned on while being docked and so the processor capacity can go SLIGHTLY up to increase the resolution output from 720p to full HD.

There are also proves/examples that your assumption is completely false.

Zelda Breath of the Wild for example runs much more smoother in 720p on handheld mode than it does on television in 900p (you can read that in technical reviews). In Handheld Mode full HD arent really needed because of the much smaller screen. And the lower the resolution is the less CPU/GPU power is needed (> better fps), easy as that.

I dont even own a Switch (yet) but i would welcome a switch version.
Especially if Yoshi. P and his team thinks that the switch is capable to play "Bloodstorm" and forwarding expansions. I trust in them more than in a sony/pc only fanboy that is talking fanboy bullshit. "60%+ while being docked" LUL...

[Clawbriar]

I mean, it's not really a case of the Switch handling it well as opposed to Nintendo's archaic way of handling friend lists and connectivity.

I see no reason for XIV to not be on XB1 or Switch, but it's like, literally dependent on those companies, and I doubt Nintendo or Microsoft will budge on those friendlist/cross platform connectivity requirements that an MMO needs.

[ReplicaX]

I trust in them more than in a sony/pc only fanboy.

There are no alternative facts when the tech specs are public on the T210 and the clock speeds of its Maxwell core. Unless you think Nintendo's own Developer Documentation is false as well.

Notice I didn't mention resolutions, simply because I assumed you would disagree with something as simple as its core specs. Yes, by locking BotW to 30FPS and reducing the resolution for its mobile screen you will get better performance in a single player game and the major focus of battery life. The engine that runs XIV is a completely different animal.

The biggest thing you overlooked in my posts was the fact that SE is porting over DQX to Switch and that will provide useful data if they have XIV in mind. Also the fact that Yoshida himself was also the Chief Planner of DQX before coming to XIV doesn't hurt either.

If any statement is positive about Switch it is this one. Not comparing a dated console that will be dropped next week.

[Abriael]

The biggest thing you overlooked in my posts was the fact that SE is porting over DQX to Switch and that will provide useful data if they have XIV in mind. Also the fact that Yoshida himself was also the Chief Planner of DQX before coming to XIV doesn't hurt either.

An important factor to consider is that Dragon Quest X is a very different animal from Final Fantasy XIV. It was designed to work on a console as weak as the Wii, and while it got a slight visual improvement recently, it (almost) literally runs on toasters. There is zero doubt that it will run comfortably on the Switch, but I doubt it'll provide much of use for FFXIV, that has entirely different hardware needs.

Especially if Yoshi. P and his team thinks that the switch is capable to play "Bloodstorm" and forwarding expansions. I trust in them more than in a sony/pc only fanboy that is talking fanboy bullshit. "60%+ while being docked" LUL...

Sorry, but the only fanboy I see here is you, considering how you're getting heated at someone arguing that the least powerful console of this generation might not have the juice to run Stormblood comfortably, which is a very realistic outlook, mind you.

You can trust whoever you like, but you're neglecting to consider the fact that Yoshida did not in any shape or form say that the Switch is capable to run the game without issue, nor that Square Enix actually intends to port the game to Switch. All he gave is the standard marketing response "we want to have the game on as many platforms as possible bla bla" which is the same answer he has given about the possibility of an Xbox One port for four years. It's called "keeping the door open" not any sort of specific information.

[Zephanoa]

I am cool with it as long as it doesn't limit their capability for innovation... but I see major issues with trying to get -this- mmo to work on a switch given the hardware what the switch runs O.O

[Kosmos992k]

Firstly: "Inuk9" is totally right.

Even the Wii U was slightly more "powerfull" than the PS3, so is the Switch slightly better as the Wii U. The Switch has 4GB RAM (wether shared with GPU / CPU or not) and the PS3 has just tiny 256 MB RAM, which is nothing.

Factually wrong. PS3 has 512MB of memory hard partitioned into two pools of 256MB.

And losing 60% in handheld mode is such an utter bullshit and #alternativeFacts. You could maybe push the power of the switch much more if the docking station would provide its own processing unit which it obviously doesnt come along with. The only thing the docking station provides is electricity. So that the coolers of the Switch are turned on while being docked and so the processor capacity can go SLIGHTLY up to increase the resolution output from 720p to full HD.

Are you certain that the coolers are in the switch itself? The way you describe the docked unit just sounds wrong. The GPU has to work significantly harder when docked, and the unit is partially enclosed in the docking unit, without some cooling in the dock itself, heat would build up in the unit.

There are also proves/examples that your assumption is completely false.

Perhaps you could provide quotes from the development documentation to support your assertion?

Zelda Breath of the Wild for example runs much more smoother in 720p on handheld mode than it does on television in 900p (you can read that in technical reviews). In Handheld Mode full HD arent really needed because of the much smaller screen. And the lower the resolution is the less CPU/GPU power is needed (> better fps), easy as that.

I dont even own a Switch (yet) but i would welcome a switch version.
Especially if Yoshi. P and his team thinks that the switch is capable to play "Bloodstorm" and forwarding expansions. I trust in them more than in a sony/pc only fanboy that is talking fanboy bullshit. "60%+ while being docked" LUL...

See, it's that last paragraph that kills your credibility in this discussion, that and obviously false assertions in your opening paragraph.

The fanboy discussion going on here is the one where people are suggesting that SE should make the compromises needed to put FFXIV on a device that demonstrably weak device that more approximately matches the power and capability of last generation than this.