So..to those of you saying the PS3 WAS NOT going to limit this game.

[Kisoko]

That butthurt minority are pc gamers, more demandings but in my case this ps3 limitation are not only for graphics or inventory size, problem here is the design of new content according to the ps3 because consoles refuse to eliminate instances and don't expect to put effort on sandbox concepts , that's why we'll see instanced arenas,more HM dungeons with recycleds models and mobs ;more ppl cap on fate primals to the detriment of exploration (swimming, climbing...etc)

The limitations discrepancy between PS2 and PC were likely larger than the ones currently between the PS3 and PC, yet each expansion in FFXI introduced new continents based in different historical lores of the world, new classes, and end game content that could take people years to wade through. I think we'll be fine.

[Arkista]

• Zone size
• Texture resolution
• Character creation options
• Inventory layout
• Armor and weapon model variety
• UI Scaling
• Overuse of instancing

*I don't know why anyone would want bigger zone sizes, they already had to put a cap on zones. 2 secs of zoning on pc must suck, Try 10+ sec on PS3.

*Don't think PS3 is holding back creation options. Seen more options on other console games than FFXIV, Ex Dragon's Dogma.

*Only thing that sucks about the inventory is no sort option which will come in 2.1 other than that whats wrong with it?

*Armor and Weapon variety don't see how PS3 is holding that back, Seems like a lack of poor design on the DEV team. FFXI was on PS2 and we had hundreds of different weapon/armor models.

[Myleus]

The limitations discrepancy between PS2 and PC were likely larger than the ones currently between the PS3 and PC, yet each expansion in FFXI introduced new continents based in different historical lores of the world, new classes, and end game content that could take people years to wade through. I think we'll be fine.

I hope it too but at least FFXI had a certain personality and mechanics based more by turn or slowly paced were more compatible between them because they charge less effects at the same time, nowadays u need a better architecture for that, hardware and good servers. FFXIV has other direction like new mmo's and works more according to console users trying to fix UI ,controls and cosmetics things instead of expand the high end longevity of a game and exploration and as a pc gamer the complex buildings and deep progression always was our premise in all past games and devs should think about that but fast money has the power unfortunately

[Returnee]

Originally I started playing the initial beta and official release of FFXIV 1.0 with an old Core 2 Duo @ 2.5ghz and a GTS 450 (Not a powerful video card) to support it and I had absolutely 0 problems running the game on Maximum settings while getting a constant 30-45fps. Dropping it down to standard (which still looked really really good) I could manage 50-60fps constantly.

I'm not trying to dispute your claims here, but I'd love to know why my system failed so terribly at playing FFXIV 1.0 then.

At the time I had a 3.0 ghz Core 2 Duo and an ATI 5850. The only real weak point was 2gb ram. But the game performed so terribly it was unplayable - and I'm not super picky about frame rates. I tested all sorts of configurations too trying to improve performance.

I also recall seeing people with much better systems, i5/17, more ram, beefy gpu, complaining about poor performance; am I the only one that remembers things being this way?

[Sixmp]

If the fact the PS3 will at some point effect the game in a way bothers people, why not go play one of the many other MMO's that will be obviously so much better as they won't be held back.

[Dervy]

So without PS3 users we would have a better UI? Thought PS3 wouldn't limit the game...

With that logic: "Without PC, PS3 users would have a better UI? I thought the PC wouldn't limit the game..."

Arguments like those are stupid. It's a multiplatform game; Therefore both platforms are limiting the experience for each other. This game isn't just a PC-Centric world.

[abacab1973]

For all those bashing the PS3 version, let's thank the fact that ALL of the RMT activity, bots and hacking can only be coming from PC users. Pompous idiots.

[RyuujinZERO]

For all those bashing the PS3 version, let's thank the fact that ALL of the RMT activity, bots and hacking can only be coming from PC users. Pompous idiots.

Riiiight, because PS3 games never get hackers or botters...

....oh wait, yes, they do.

[Kittra]

I'm not trying to dispute your claims here, but I'd love to know why my system failed so terribly at playing FFXIV 1.0 then.

At the time I had a 3.0 ghz Core 2 Duo and an ATI 5850. The only real weak point was 2gb ram. But the game performed so terribly it was unplayable - and I'm not super picky about frame rates. I tested all sorts of configurations too trying to improve performance.

I also recall seeing people with much better systems, i5/17, more ram, beefy gpu, complaining about poor performance; am I the only one that remembers things being this way?

I think this is because "originally" AO and Depth of Field were on by default even in Standard mode... The type of AO they were trying to use with version 1.0 simply does not play nice with DirectX9 and it reduced all of my systems to a crawl when either this or Depth of Field were switched on.

It didn't help that the game's configuration (set separately outside the game) didn't even list them in the "video" tab, but under the Misc. tab where completely useless options like Cut-scene effects were kept.

They also didn't call many of the video configuration options by their actual "technical" names, so a lot of tinkering went into getting the correct settings down.
Simply selecting High, Standard or Low settings did not really change anything other than the anti-aliasing settings unlike now where it changes all of the settings.

[Natolii]

This and FF XiV is not the only game to do this. Neverwinter Nights which is a Free-to-Play on PC only does the smaller instances. It has to do with the Number of users and how much the game servers are being taxed. This is not something you can lay on the doorstep of PS3. Try again...

If you played 1.0 then you should know that adding zones has nothing to do with the ps3. 1.0 experienced SUPER latency issues for BOTH the PC and Ps3. They added zones to handle the load for both systems because of how graphic intensive the game is for most people's systems.

They also shrunk the zones because of time. They had to basically redo the whole world to handle people complaining about blades of grass and constant repeating rocks. If you think they were going to spend the time and resources to make it as big as 1.0 you are asking too much.