Google Stadia, and Xbox Support? - Any Update?

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

Yes, but are you able to correlate low framerates to a CPU or GPU bottleneck? It matters. The PS4 is weak AF in CPU but the GPU is lower midrange, ie.well enough to run the game at decent frame rates. Knowing how each component factors in to system limitations is important, moreso if yer on PC.

Again, most people who are playing on crappy laptops have cpus marginally better than the ps4, and way worse in the gpu department. For these people, the igpus in the laptops are 100% the limiting factor.

Also, while the ps4 is much weaker, games are generally much better optimized, as developers don't need to worry about thousands of gpu/cpu combinations, driver levels, os versions.


I play on a PC, which was good 6 years ago. Only that's been upgraded is gpu, and that was due to power limitations in the room I was renting.

I have a 4770k and a 980ti (up from 2 gtx770s in sli)

[Mistyregions]

Oh yes there's PS4 limitations, that CPU is a netbook lump from circa 2011. There's no getting around the fact it's a serious limitation, even a low spec PC easily twice as powerful in the CPU department. In addition SE make absolutely no guarantees on PC performance, whereas PS4 performance must meet a minimum standard. Now that said mt SO plays on a PS4 Pro, and visually it's very close to PC on Max, but even with both machines on wired connections I always port in first to everything, and rarely get any dropped frames in populated areas. FWIW I'm on an older i5 with a GTX1080 so I'm not representative of the low spec PC group

Absolutely false a low spec PC is 2.4ghz, 3g ram and a low low low low end graphics card. That SAME PC could never run a game like anthem, yet the ps4 can. It's called optimization. The lowest common denominator is the lowest spec PC.

[Nemmar]

I cannot imagine how horrible it would be to play FF in Stadia.

The game is already kind of laggy by nature. Double the amount of lag, and not even the 2.5sec GCD will save it. Stay away from that.

[Sei_Konsetsu]

I agree that porting it would come with its own issues, which is why I'm basing it on a hypothetical situation where they got it to work in a way that's perfectly playable with the current state of the game. I think there would need to be a certain amount of work involved thus would prefer them to direction their resources elsewhere.

Thinking about how I got SW:TOR to work on my old laptop (I got it lower than the lowest settings availabe), which is not supposed to run it, there's a lot that can be done to tweak it before you look at lowering texture resolutions. Heck in the case of texture resolution, it wouldn't take an awful lot to compress textures into a lower resolution. Cutting out and stripping down shaders or lowing the resolution on shaders that use one (like shadows and full screen effects) can help too. Or just turning them off. The the CPU issue could potentially be dealt with by reducing how many players are rendered on screen and give priority based on distance and whether in your party or friendslist. Not ideal, but it's an option and wouldn't be a deal breaker.

I mean, it'd look stripped down. But I think it is doable, depending on how optimised it'd be for Switch. And I don't think it'd have a negative impact on the PC or PS4 versions of the game, because I cannot think of anything they would add that'd make the console a limitation.

Although 4gb RAM is low for a PC these days, the game's minimum specifications are for 3gb RAM and a low-mid range graphics card. I expect the devs would stick to that kind of level for how they spec the game. So we have this limitation regardless of consoles. But at least it's better than what PS3's had to offer. And I certainly don't see a PS4 or XBox One providing these limitations in the future either.

Not everybody has a gaming rig or setup. And having a low entry point for spec makes the game more accessible. Especially as it is played global in a variety of economies by people in all kinds of backgrounds and ages. So some people are playing this on a potato, possibly because they can't afford something bigger, or can't justify a rig or console for one game, especially if it already runs on what they've got.

The switch can hardly run overwatch, Mortal Kombat looks like a joke on the switc, this can be said about many other ports to switch. I own a switch as well, but i dont get why so many people are "aww man, this game is great, but would be better if it was on switch". The games portrd are quaint, but most of em have fps issues and other problems.

Would be a waste of resources to even attempt such a port.

[Saefinn]

The switch can hardly run overwatch, Mortal Kombat looks like a joke on the switc, this can be said about many other ports to switch. I own a switch as well, but i dont get why so many people are "aww man, this game is great, but would be better if it was on switch". The games portrd are quaint, but most of em have fps issues and other problems.

Would be a waste of resources to even attempt such a port.

Oh I agree it'd be a waste of resources. I just think the "console limitations" argument is overused as for something to hold the game back. I think a Switch port would be -possible- and without negatively impacting other versions of the game. There are specific reasons why PS3 limitations held the game back, which I wouldn't expect to be present on the Switch (as RAM was the issue and the Switch has enough RAM). And there were very specific reasons why it was the bane of FFXI's life.

Whilst, it'd be /nice/ to have, but whether they should is another matter. To me, their resources seems stretched as-is and there's plenty I'd rather see done as a priority. Anything that uses resources means resources aren't spent elsewhere. I think the dev team deserve more resources at their disposal, because I think that's one of the things limiting the game in areas that could be better. I have the same argument against upping the game's graphics and upping the visual quality or adding more technology to the game, not only would it boost the minimum requirements, it's also use resources that'd benefit other parts of the game. Arguably, SE should let the dev team have more, especially after how well they did with Shadowbringers and its critical success.

[Awha]

FFXIV on the go would be nice, I commute roughly three hours a day via bus and train not having to bust out my laptop to do a little fishing for crafting while on my to and from work would be awesome. Though it honestly would be an utter waste of resources in the grand scheme of things, not because of limitations more so the effort and time required to make such a port.

[Delmontyb]

I see a lot of people bringing up the Switch on this Thread, and I fully support this game coming to the Nintendo Switch, but in Cloud Form. In fact, the Cloud and Cloud Gaming will change MMORPGs for the better in the next decade, as there will be no "hardware limitations" because everything will run off the server.

Being that I've moved all my gaming to the cloud, including FFXIV and have been playing it there since Shadowbringers, I can say that it's mind-blowing how awesome cloud gaming is.
It's not fully ready for NA mind you, but here in Texas, it works perfectly.

[Hyperia]

I believe Yoshi looked at Stadia but he was concerned about the latency aspect of it and if it would be playable. Single player games dont really care as much about latency as much as an MMO will.

So if I had to guess, FFXIV will probably not show up on Stadia, mostly because it would have latency rates being in the risky area.

[Saefinn]

On the cloud gaming aspect, latency is a valid concern. But there are some really strong solutions out there, Stadia could be one as its Google and I expect they are the sort to pull it off.

Another is Shadow, they've put a considerable amount of work to keep the latency ridiculously low to provide very little noticeable difference, and I think an MMO like FFXIV would not suffer on their platform (I only tested with BDO and GW2 and they were fine). My PC doesn't like their software, which is the only issue I've got with it and gives me choppy audio, but I didn't get that testing on my iPad, however, it's s bit expensive when I rarely game on my iPad.

[Saefinn]

Absolutely false a low spec PC is 2.4ghz, 3g ram and a low low low low end graphics card. That SAME PC could never run a game like anthem, yet the ps4 can. It's called optimization. The lowest common denominator is the lowest spec PC.

In addition to this there are a few other considerations on PC versus console. Consoles will generally only have to accommodate a limited set of hardware configurations meaning they can get a much more optimised use of hardware versus a PC. Plus consoles dedicate more hardware resources to the running game and have less bloat to worry about.

And developers only have that one set up to test against.