They should scrap the PS3 version.

[Rannie]

first just a quick question to op. What are your credentials and may I see your diploma in game design?

FFXI was MADE for the PS2, even though it hit the PC first. get some facts, or were you still in diapers back then.

to Indira FFXI came out in JAPAN to the PS2 first and foremost before it EVER was released for the pc

http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Final_Fantasy_XI

PlayStation 2 version: May 16, 2002 / March 23, 2004

PC version:
November 7, 2002 / October 28, 2003 / September 17, 2004

[Alhanelem]

to Indira FFXI came out in JAPAN to the PS2 first and foremost before it EVER was released for the pc

The PC version was planned from the beginning. It doesn't matter when it came out- and to everyone except Japan, the PC version came out first- because in every other region, PC gaming was much more prominent.

[Rannie]

that still doesn't matter since it still originally came out on the ps2 though *shrugs*

[Alkimi]

Namely zone sizes, textures, shaders. It's a little hard to tell if polycount was reduced too, but certainly seems that way on some of the buildings in gridania at least. Zone size is probably the most quantifiable of these since you can measure it, and also noticeable since, for example, Gridania the town is now two separate zones,which is obviously a pretty significant shrinkage from what used to be the entirety of the blackshroud and Gridania together in a single area. Some of this was to promote diversity of environments, but also, I imagine that much of it was due to PS3 memory limitations (i.e., Gridania the city now being split into two separate zones whereas 1.0 could handle it fine in one zone). Graphically, these things were changed to accommodate the lower specs of PS3, so if they threw out the ps3 version, it would make their efforts somewhat futile and downgrades hard to justify, except to say that now the game can be handled fine on low-end machines which could potentially attract a bigger playerbase.

Maybe for the 10 people who could actually run 1.0 on max settings. I had to turn down so much to run 1.0 at a decent framerate but I could run the benchmark with no issues at max. For the vast vast majority of us ARR will look better.

[Xatsh]

If the ps3 in beta 3 is still tearing then it is time to panic.

But I can garentee you one of 2 things will happen.

1) They will actually optimize it, they have their team and now a team from Sony helping them to maximize what the ps3 can do.

2) They will reduce the graphics more... the ps3 is already running at surprisingly high graphics between Mid and High setting according to Yoshida. test the benchmark yourself for pc. Change from High to Mid and turn off some of the fancy settings and it drastically improves. They can do the same thing for PS3, it will look slightly worse but improvement will drastically improve at the same time.

People on the forums saying it is a lost cause proves their own ignorance. They are acting like the game is being printed and sent out atm. PS3 is not even in beta yet. People are judging a working development build as a released game... the stupidity of that just has no real comments.

Everyone knows ps3 is not ready including the devs. And if anyone can push graphics to the limit on consoles SE can.. that is 1 thing they are good at and playstation is their home turf.

[Xeonerable]

They've been promising the PS3 version and have gotten this far, might as well finish it.

[billydata21]

/dislike the OP...They will not trash the ps3 release and they better not. It is obvious they know how the video looked also and i'm sure they won't release the ps3 version until it is the best it can be. I only got 2600 on benchmark on my pc, and i'm sure my ps3 will run the game way better than that. so i'm excited for it.

[nokinator]

its gotten quite warm in here lol

[Abriael]

This is irrelevant. No MMO, final fantasy or otherwise, should be released on consoles. Also, just because a franchise is historically released on one platform, doesn't mean that can't change- it in fact has changed many times, both for Square Enix and many other developers.

The reason is simple. Virtually all MMOs demand an extendable, upgradable platform, because the games themselves are extended and upgraded over time. Such games should not be released on platforms not capable of that. This isn't about being a PC fanboi, it's about simple facts and reality.

Nope. It's about not knowing what you're talking about

Look no further than FFXI and PS2 limitations for the prime example of why an MMO should not be on a console.

Look no further for a completely unfitting example that describes a completely different situation, that mind you has already been explained in this thread and a million of other times.

FFXI was limited by the PS1 for the simple fact that the PS1 was the *lead platform*. The game was developed for PS1 and then ported to PC. Its core assets were designed for the the PS1 and could not be upgraded to PC standards unless they were completely remade for scratch.

This problem does not appear when PC is the lead platform and the game is only ported to consoles, as assets can be downgraded easily and as much as you want to fit ONLY the console version, while the PC version can remain untouched.

It's no different from any other games made for consoles and ported to PC. Unless the developer is willing to do a lot of additional work on them, they're bad for PC standards. See Skyrim and many others.

But if you look at Crysis 3, it easily looks like one of the best PC games out there graphically, while on consoles it looks a TON worse. It has not been limited by consoles, because PC was the *lead platform* and the game has been just downgraded to fit on PS360.

Your point about MMORPGs needing an upgradable platform is equally and completely off mark. A MMORPG that runs on PC on consoles doesn't even need to run on the same engine to run seamlessly on the same server. All that needs to be common between the two platforms is the data flow about characters, enemies and variable elements and the collision map so that a character doesn't look stuck inside a wall on the other platform. That's it.

You can very easily upgrade the engine of the PC version without even touching the PS3 version, as long as the collision map of the world is the same, the PS3 version could be made with the graphics of minecraft and the PC version could be evolved to photorealism and it would. not. pose. a. single. problem.

You, sir, are just involving yourself in the usual meaningless exercise of platform elitism, no matter the fact that you say or think you aren't.

[Lokixak]

Should check this Interview with Yoshi P from Gamer Escape:
http://gamerescape.com/2013/02/21/ga...iv-media-tour/

The first question is regarding exactly this.

GE- Being a long time FFXI player, I have concerns about the hardware limitations the PS3 hardware will have on the PC client. I know with PS2 and FFXI there were memory limitations and things like that- and because one console is burdened by these limitations, the other clients had to adhere to those.

Have there been any steps taken so that the PS3 hardware won’t hold back other clients?

Yoshida- To be honest, the biggest problem we had with XI was yes the memory, but also the hard disc space. But with the PS3, you can add as much as you like, so to be honest I’m not really concerned about that.

Also there was a fundamental difference between XI and XIV was made. With XI it was based on the PS2 and then that was brought over to windows. On the other hand with XIV we’re making the windows version first and then bringing it to PS3 without reducing the quality too much. We’re making sure the balance is good for PS3 players, but the foundation is on the windows version.