Could we get an HD texture pack for the PC?

[RobbieH]

Once they drop PS3 support i'm sure we'll get better textures, however i don't know if they'll do that starting with everything from when the PS3 support was dropped or if they will already have high res textures but haven't released them yet.

[Zeno_McDohl]

Once they drop PS3 support i'm sure we'll get better textures, however i don't know if they'll do that starting with everything from when the PS3 support was dropped or if they will already have high res textures but haven't released them yet.

I'm a bit lost, what does PS3 have to do with this? This texture pack would be PC only, and optional. How would the PS3 impact that? It's client-side only.

[bass9020]

I'm a bit lost, what does PS3 have to do with this? This texture pack would be PC only, and optional. How would the PS3 impact that? It's client-side only.

Laziness and everyone has to be equal.

[Kosmos992k]

Once they drop PS3 support i'm sure we'll get better textures, however i don't know if they'll do that starting with everything from when the PS3 support was dropped or if they will already have high res textures but haven't released them yet.

PS3 support has zero impact on optional HD textures.

For a start the original artwork and models already exist at far higher resolutions, but have been scaled and massaged down to fit specific memory budgets. If they could put higher definition textures into the PC/PS4/Mac client without impacting other development efforts, I'd be all for it.

The funny thing is that most of the media reviews of FFXIV talk about how good looking a game it is...already. Still HD textures to go with the lighting, shadows, reflections and atmospheric effects would be great.

[RobbieH]

PS3 support has zero impact on optional HD textures.

Yes it does, but when they made 2.0 they didn't make high res textures, and PS3 is the reason.

PS3 has 512MB RAM, and that was the reason we didn't see high res textures, i don't see any other reason besides it, PC has more than support for them and so does PS4.

[Kosmos992k]

Yes it does, but when they made 2.0 they didn't make high res textures, and PS3 is the reason.

PS3 has 512MB RAM, and that was the reason we didn't see high res textures, i don't see any other reason besides it, PC has more than support for them and so does PS4.

Oh, I see. That'll explain all the PS3 games with decent texture resolutiins right?

It's well know that PS3 uses a partitioned memory scheme, no 256 MB each of system and graphics memory isn't mutch by todays standards, but you know, we used to run entire games in 16KB of RAM, and games ran, and looked good at SVGA resolutions without multiple GB of memory to throw at the thing. So often today people think the solution to everything is throwing more memory at something. It's an answer, but not the only one, nor the most efficient.

As for blaming the PS3, you might as well throw in lowrr spec PCs to be blamed as well, not to mention the fact that PCs now have DX11 options, and PS4 has additional graphics options, that the PS3 lacks. By your logic, no DX11 should be possible.

[RobbieH]

As for blaming the PS3, you might as well throw in lowrr spec PCs to be blamed as well, not to mention the fact that PCs now have DX11 options, and PS4 has additional graphics options, that the PS3 lacks. By your logic, no DX11 should be possible.

Please quote me where i said optional HD textures weren't possible because of the PS3.

The HD textures weren't made available back then because the hardware resources for them were limited, it would need a good amount of RAM which the PS3 didn't have, and on PC not everyone had 8/16GB of RAM back then, PS4 had but it's support came later.

I never said the PS3 was the cause of not having an optional HD texture pack, i didn't even mention optional HD textures in my post, i've said the reason why we didn't had HD textures was because of the PS3, which translates into limitations.

[Zanair_Mhairon]

I also support the idea of a higher resolution texture pack. There is nothing more immersion breaking than seeing the ground putty trying to eat my character's feet or having a very epic and/or sad scene gobbled up by awful textures and pixelation.

[Velhart]

Does no one remember that the very same 1.0 graphics is what was one of the biggest reasons it did not run well? A flower pot using the same amount of data as an NPC.

As for the texture packs. Why? The game already has a Low > Maximum setting where the textures and graphics have a significant difference. Not to mention, DX9 and DX11 have a lot of differences also.

You won't see an increase or added features till the PS3 version is dropped.

[CodingSquirrel]

Does no one remember that the very same 1.0 graphics is what was one of the biggest reasons it did not run well? A flower pot using the same amount of data as an NPC.

Increasing textures, heck even increasing poly count which is what you're thinking of with that pot, can be done in an intelligent way such that we don't go back to the bad graphical decisions of 1.0. Like don't put as much emphasis on random environmental objects no one is going to notice as you would a character model. Also, it's not a problem as long as you give the correct graphics options so that people with less capable rigs can still use what they have now.

As for the texture packs. Why? The game already has a Low > Maximum setting where the textures and graphics have a significant difference. Not to mention, DX9 and DX11 have a lot of differences also.

Because even at max settings most textures are pretty bad, and even the good ones don't hold up too well when you zoom in. Look at this screenshot I came across. You can't seriously tell me you think those look good. http://i.imgur.com/bCtvVlG.png

You won't see an increase or added features till the PS3 version is dropped.

There's no reason something like this couldn't be implemented right now. Just don't give the option to the platforms that can't handle it.