Yoshi-P says discussions about FFXIV on Switch and Xbox One are "Positive"

[Shouko]

Marketing and reality are often two different things. The reviews I'm reading are saying despite the specs being higher performance wise it's on par with the ps4 pro sans VR support. And should the game get xbox support will it only be the xbox one x or will it be the standard xbox one that gets supported?

You asked if they were on par, I linked the specs, I clearly stated I don't know what people are currently running. The hardware inside of the One X is far superior to that of the PS Pro, whether it's on par as far as running games? Idk nor do I care. I own neither of the upgraded systems and have no desire to really buy one or the other. I don't even like this gen of consoles tbh, I own a ps4 strictly because a friend gave me his old one and upgraded to a pro, only reason I even play ffxiv.

[Cakekizyy]

MS still want their own servers...
This discussion has not changed the many times SE has talked with them

Can't they give them own servers in existing data centre? They would have own world, but could still play with others.

[Kaonis]

Hurray, 2 more systems to hold back development of the game. I for one welcome our new Switch-BoxOne limitations memes.

[Kohdo]

Hurray, 2 more systems to hold back development of the game. I for one welcome our new Switch-BoxOne limitations memes.

Came here to say this.

I'd love to play FF on my smart fridge or my car stereo. Who cares if it limits development for everyone else?

[silverlunarfox]

I think you are confusing Sony with Microsoft. Sony already allows it, Microsoft wants it closed off from PC and PS4.

Recently its been all Sony, like with Rocket League and Minecraft both which they refuse to allow cross plat play.

I personally get why theyd want to port to switch, but uh, i feel like we'd get more "limitations" if it was added to the party.

[SerLuke]

Hurray, 2 more systems to hold back development of the game. I for one welcome our new Switch-BoxOne limitations memes.

Meh I'm fine with the game as it is techwise esp if it means more friends to play with that just have those systems.

[Maero]

Can't they give them own servers in existing data centre? They would have own world, but could still play with others.

Well by MS wanting their own servers it sounded like they did not want to play with the PS4 crowd, could be wrong.
There is also the XBox Live requirement i believe. Basically they are not wanting to budge on this in all the meetings Yoshi has met with them
While i am not a fan of xbox at all i still would not make a big deal of it if xbox players eventually are able to play, everyone should be able to enjoy this game

[Sebazy]

Lol It isn't "hardware elitism" its cold hard reality. Or are you going to tell me PS3 limitations was never a thing?

The PS3 client was memory limited from day one, remember how segments of the UI needed to be cut out to get the minimal TP bars in? PS3 memory limitation right there. Don't believe me? Note how we got all these new UI elements right as the PS3 support got cut. The CPU and GPU weren't an issue, it was entirely down to that trifling 256+256mb rambus ram configuration not playing nice in a game where you can't tightly control and predict assets.

Standing in Kugane by the market board at max settings sees my PC using just over 1GB of ram, lets be super crazy generous and set aside another 1GB for the GPU for this and we've still got at least another 1GB sat free on our imaginary Switch client.

TLDR: The switch won't be anything like the boat anchor the PS3 client was and personally I'd love to see FFXIV get ported over to it.

[DeaconMoore]

The PS3 client was memory limited from day one, remember how segments of the UI needed to be cut out to get the minimal TP bars in? PS3 memory limitation right there. Don't believe me? Note how we got all these new UI elements right as the PS3 support got cut. The CPU and GPU weren't an issue, it was entirely down to that trifling 256+256mb rambus ram configuration not playing nice in a game where you can't tightly control and predict assets.

Standing in Kugane by the market board at max settings sees my PC using just over 1GB of ram, lets be super crazy generous and set aside another 1GB for the GPU for this and we've still got at least another 1GB sat free on our imaginary Switch client.

TLDR: The switch won't be anything like the boat anchor the PS3 client was and personally I'd love to see FFXIV get ported over to it.

So it'll still be an anchor just not as bad? Heh, very reassuring.

Now how about instead of standing at the marketboard with nothing more exciting going on than gil spamming, head into some mass combat on max settings. Your resource usage will balloon and your frame rates will probably drop too.

Also the size of the RAM (only 3 gigs total really? Awesome if you're living in 1999) is but one factor for performance. The amount of ram and how it is accessed and allocated as well as its speed is important to. Is it shared memory? It sounds like it is from what you describe. When a system has to share memory between its video card and main cpu *shudder* it's not a good thing for gaming. Perfectly acceptable for basic business applications though.

[Sebazy]

Now how about instead of standing at the marketboard with nothing more exciting going on than gil spamming, head into some mass combat on max settings. Your resource usage will balloon and your frame rates will probably drop too.

About the only unavoidable increase there will be CPU usage due to animation overheads. Even in Rabanastre, memory usage is in the same ballpark if not lower (I used Kugane's market board to force as many assets into memory as I could FYI, it's a complex zone with a large amount of characters around). In a theoretical Switch port both the memory and GPU usage would be scaled back very significantly through lower resolution textures and more aggressive LOD settings. In short, unless SE handle the Switch port like they did the Apple Mac port and just chuck it in a wrapper (Which is unlikely since it uses gameworks, porting to should be somewhat painless), it's not going to be a problem unless they suddenly and substantially up their production values (which isn't going to happen at this stage).

Also the size of the RAM (only 3 gigs total really? Awesome if you're living in 1999) is but one factor for performance. The amount of ram and how it is accessed and allocated as well as its speed is important to. Is it shared memory? It sounds like it is from what you describe. When a system has to share memory between its video card and main cpu *shudder* it's not a good thing for gaming. Perfectly acceptable for basic business applications though.

Ehm, I think every modern current generation console (The 3DS is the only exception that comes to my mind?) uses a unified memory architecture no? The original Xbox One has it's little ES ram segment but that's about the only variance going on here. It's also interesting to note that the PS3's memory architecture actually had comparable if not more bandwidth than the current consoles Being Rambus, I'd feel safe assuming it had awful latency though.

Don't get me wrong, I love a nice beefy PC setup as much as the next man (Currently sat infront of a 1080TI/X34A pairing) and no, I don't have a PS4/Xbox one because I'm rubbish with gamepads. Even with a PC of my setup, I'd still gladly put my money on a switch port for the convenience of it. I'd never touch Savage on it, but it'd be beautifully convenient for dailies and casual gameplay.

And yes, I do have actual experience in this field, whilst I narrowly miss the 1999 reference, I spent much of 2000-2001 porting Quake 3 to the PS2. We took that game from a 64mb footprint down to 16mb primarily through a huge amount of level optimisation and typically half sized textures and it's worth noting we actually had it running at 60 fps for much of it's development. It's a surprisingly interesting topic =(