XIV on Switch and Xbox

[enthauptet]

Okay I am just going to assume you don't know anything about software development and leave it at that.

[Abriael]

Here is a reality of game development.

Whether the game is released on Xbox One and Switch or not depends on one primary factor.

That's whether Square Enix projects that the money they'll make on either of those platforms justifies the effort required to develop and market a port.

Nothing said in this thread matters, so may want to calm down with the console war.


Now that we've gotten that out of the way, here is another interesting thing for those who think that this is in any shape or form new (hint: it really isn't, even the possibility of a Switch version was already mentioned at Frankfurt fanfest).

Yoshi-P first mentioned negotiating with Microsoft for an Xbox One version in 2014.

They were still negotiating in 2015.

And they were still negotiating in 2016.

They've been negotiating for four years. And then people wonder why I don't ask anymore.

[Maero]

If Yoshi thinks stormblood isnt possible on Switch he wouldnt take it into account.
He is not an amateur, so his hardware team.

Secondly: inventory space has nothing to do with the performance of a system.. moreover of server capacities.
Such bullshit..

You do realize it has been the so called reason thus far for inventory space, because apparent limitations....
I did not agree with it and the jokes going around about PS3 limitations though. So many developers were still clueless how to harness all the power of the PS3 even at the end of it's cycle.

Anyhow a few people have already disproved your other points so i will leave it at that.

[ReplicaX]

a PS3 with 256 MB RAM...

The PS3 has dedicated System & VRAM 256/256. Not "256MB RAM" which I am correcting you on once again as the Switch has Unified RAM.

I only corrected your misinformation.

it was THE major issue on PS3.

You blamed the "PS3" as the Major reason of why they made zones smaller, this is incorrect.

Going smaller allowed more unique textures and less overuse of texture instancing and a reduction in server loads due the heavy server side checks are 2 Critically important reasons.

The Team wanted smaller more detailed zones while maintaining stable server loads VS Mass over usage of texture instancing in Large zones.

the support of PS3 is already gone.

Then why are you continually comparing a 2006 console to a 2017 console and posting its incorrect specs to begin with?

[DamianFatale]

No. Just no. It will create more restrictions.

[Kosmos992k]

Okay I am just going to assume you don't know anything about software development and leave it at that.

LOL, if you want to do this, OK.

1. Xbox uses an embedded version of Windows, think shoehorning the Windows behemoth into an embedded platform, it's not running Windows 10, you can't install Windows 10 on it.
2. You are making the mistake of equating market presence with openness. Windows is a highly proprietary, closed OS owned by Microsoft. Microsoft is using Windows on Xbox in order to try to drag PCs and Xbox together so that they can run the same games on both, and falsely claim multi-platform openness.
3. PS4 system software is a version of FreeBSD which is in fact an OPEN source OS.

As it happens I am a developer and I am fully aware of Microsoft's well documented and proven history of anti competitive practices, and closed systems primarily related to Windows itself, but also other products of theirs such as Office. MS is also a master of "FUD" - fear, uncertainty and doubt; which is uses to seed doubt and fear in the minds of customers considering competing platforms.

Yes Windows is near ubiquitous on PCs, but that market presence does not in any way indicate openness on the part of Microsoft as a software developer, platform holder or corporation.

I was laughing at your naive implication that MS is open because they embedded Windows on Xbox, even upgrading to "windows 10" because Windows is far from open and Microsoft themselves are even further from open. Microsoft have repeatedly used their market presence to eliminate competitors, competing standards and open standards. Please understand, this isn't an opinion of mine it's documented fact.

Microsoft operate on a policy of Embrace, extend and extinguish. This policy follows the general course of MS identifying a segment they want to dominate, they launch a product and appear to embrace all the existing standards and conventions of the segment. Then Microsoft extends their offering, adding proprietary extensions to what was once an open standard or an industry standard accepted by all. Finally, using their overwhelming market presence, Microsoft marginalizes competitors that cannot support those proprietary standards by creating false comparisons showing their extended products in a favorable light, and locking competitors out either by keeping their systems closed or charging prohibitively high license fees to use their new 'standard'. This ultimately forces competitors out and extinguishes them leaving Microsoft as the predominant player in the segment.

The idea that Microsoft should be held as an example of openness compared to anyone is laughable.

Now that is done, feel free to assume anything you like about my professional abilities, though assuming I don't know anything about software development would be a massively wrong assumption to make.

[Jetstream_Fox]

It is funny how people say Sony is more open with SE than MS is, but MS is waaaaay more open with their console development platorm than Sony has ever been. (development and business deals are separate but this always struck me as kind of funny)

What did I just read?

[KisaiTenshi]

Yoshi has been in talks with MS for years regarding an Xbox version. In the past though, Microsoft wouldnt change its policy regarding shared servers with Sony, etc.
If MS is willing to change their policy to allow for cross-system server play, then an Xbox version would likely move forward. (Either that or Xbox users would be all on their own, with their own community)

As for switch... this has me worried. We just got rid of PS3 support.. Why do we wanna bog it down again with limited hardware specs like that of the switch?

The reason Xbox versions never come out is because of Xbox Live requirements. Microsoft wants control over the matchmaking process, and by allowing MMORPG's on the platform, means they don't have to pay Xbox Live. There have been several "complete" MMORPG's ported to use the Xbox 360 but then Microsoft screws them.

I imagine the problem is similar with Sony and Nintendo. Nintendo even separates the cash-shop between Android and iOS users because Android users are more likely to cheat on their mobile phone games. See Pokemon Go.

In the case of the Switch, I imagine that the Tegra platform actually would allow SE to port FFXIV over easier because it uses the nVidia gameworks libraries. nVidia claims the GPU is more powerful than one found in the Xbox 360 or PS3, but that's still speculation because mobile devices typically have power requirements to allow it to run on battery, and you are hard pressed to get "PS3" performance out of a mobile device without it being plugged into a charger full time.

The most powerful mobile device you can buy right now is the Apple iPad Pro (A10 Fusion CPU/GPU, aka iPad 7,4) http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3036382 , where as the Switch is about the same performance level of the nVidia Shield http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/...seline=3036382 , So to put things in perspective using the Shield as a reference point, the Switch is likely somewhere around the performance of a 13" MacBook Pro (12,1) http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/...seline=2647944 from 2015. The closest single core and multi-core match is actually closer to the i5-4310M 2.7Ghz.

It's a bit hard to say one way or the other, but it's likely that FFXIV running on the switch would be running a "standard, mobile" settings, not "high quality, desktop"

Even then, I think the play experience on the Switch would likely be less intuitive since most touch-screens are terrible for response time, so unless you are going to exclusively use the controller crossbar, I doubt the touch screen will be the main input device. Even on games ported to phones and tablets, "virtual controllers" have generally been extremely bad experiences. Though that didn't stop SE from porting FF7 to one.

[Elkanah]

It would look just like it does on Pro, 4, and PC. The only question would be how it's optimized to be used on a Xbox controller. On the Pro/4 the touch pad is used to help navigate through menus.

Most likely similar to how PC and the Xbox One controller work as it is. I've tested both the PS4 and the PC with controller to see how the functionality is used, and they're actually pretty similar. The only difference is that the Xbox One controller uses the select button (button with 2 squares overlapping) as the touch pad. And the start button works similar to the PS4 versions on the controller already. Since Microsoft has been working on putting in the keyboard function for some games; I could see XBS using a KBM or controller function

[Jetstream_Fox]

Xbox has been notorious with cross server play and lifting the requirements of Xbox Live. I think some of you have seriously never played on a Xbox console, their strict requirements date back to the original Xbox, this is going to be a bit of a history lesson. When Sega released Phantasy Star Online Episode 1 and 2 on Xbox, the game was required to have Xbox Live, plus a Hunters License, it's online service fee. Sega gave the green light for this, released the game, but stopped supporting it because of Xbox wanting to charge for updates, players got annoyed at the lack of updates and eventually started to hack the game, they were able to bring over Dreamcast items, that were planned to be released in content updates, as well as found files that suggested that Sega was considering bringing over Episode 4 to Xbox as a final expansion, instead that was scrapped and it was released as Phantasy Star Online Blue Burst, as a PC only release.

Microsoft has continued to do this, and even stopped the Xbox 360 version of The Orange Box from using steam servers, they also prevented Portal 2 from again being cross play. Sony actually allowed cross play before Xbox ever did and way before any of this started to come back into the main stream with Portal 2.