Quote Originally Posted by Elexia View Post
I'm very curious to hear how a map, usually done in a modeling software that even you can download for free, wouldn't be compatible between 2 clients of the same game.
I doubt that a company with as much dough as Squeenix is using freeware 3D Programs to produce assets. Also, different engines are more compatible with certain object file types. For example, Unity is very friendly with Maya files, but also works well with the universal .fbx files.

Regardless, I think you are missing the point. Nobody is saying that the geometry is incompatible. What is being said is that the engine being used for 2.0 is (most likely, and I do hope so for the sake of good game design) being optimized for smaller zones, which tends to be a more efficient way to include more detail. More flavor in smaller bites.

Now I don't really know anything about either engine, aside from the obvious fact that the current one is a clunky, un-optimized mess. But I don't think it would be a stretch to say that the current engine is /airquotes "optimized" for these larger, seamless zones. Which means that in order to have these nicer zones retro-ported into the current engine would require code ripping as well as geometry. And the 2 engines might not even use the same programming language (I know if I was rebuilding FFXIV, I would start from the ground up and that might mean a different language. Not to mention that to put the same maps into 2 different locations when 1 location is going to be scrapped soon after is such a waste of time.

Basically, bringing 2.0 maps into 1.whatever would be; (a) a hassle, (b) an inefficient use of time and man power, and (c) pointless because we get them in 2.0 anyway.