They should scrap the PS3 version.

[Ladon]

Which is exactly why memory restrictions have absolutely nothing to do with the reduction of the zone size. Zones have a theme, and even if they're not tiled anymore they use pretty much the same assets fitting that theme all over the zone. Having a zone even twice as big wouldn't cause many more assets to be loaded whether it's streaming or not, unless the theme changed radically from one side to the other, and it doesn't.

Yes they do. As I said, the only evidence of stream we have are LOD assets (as per the benchmark for example) also the PS3 videos shown so far don't show any of the typical artifacts that would be present if the game was streaming local assets.

This means that it is highly unlikely that ARR engine supports asset stream as say UE3 might. This is also why it makes sense that zone size is restrictive as it is. Your zone size itself has no impact on network performance. From the network side, the main reason they went with a zoning system is that they can hard cap the amount of players that are in any given zone and this allows them to determine a solid capacity number they can work with.

It's far more likely that zone size is a product of assets they can load in a given area and if you start stretching your assets thin then you end up with the old 1.0, cut-n-paste and barren areas which I am sure they wanted to avoid at all costs.

[Abriael]

Yes they do. As I said, the only evidence of stream we have are LOD assets (as per the benchmark for example) also the PS3 videos shown so far don't show any of the typical artifacts that would be present if the game was streaming local assets.

This means that it is highly unlikely that ARR engine supports asset stream as say UE3 might.

ARR's engine is based on Luminous, that does support asset streaming.

This is also why it makes sense that zone size is restrictive as it is. Your zone size itself has no impact on network performance. From the network side, the main reason they went with a zoning system is that they can hard cap the amount of players that are in any given zone and this allows them to determine a solid capacity number they can work with.

It's not just that. If you have smaller zones and your content is well spread, your population will automatically be spread between more zones, resulting in less traffic per server in the cluster.

It's far more likely that zone size is a product of assets they can load in a given area and if you start stretching your assets thin then you end up with the old 1.0, cut-n-paste and barren areas which I am sure they wanted to avoid at all costs.

They don't need to stretch anything thin. Even if the areas aren't cut and paste, every game has themed texture packages. If you look at every ARR video and the benchmark you'll see that textures and models are kept consistent throughout a zone. They just aren't arranged in larger tiles for ease of placing like 1.0 did.

Which means that it doesn't really matter if a zone is 10000 square feet or 40000. The assets are still pretty much the same. They are just repeated in a much more clever and less sloppy way than they were in 1.0.

[Demacus]

From the network side, the main reason they went with a zoning system is that they can hard cap the amount of players that are in any given zone and this allows them to determine a solid capacity number they can work with.

That's funny. I thought this was why they went to a zoning system:

"The current maps in FINAL FANTASY XIV are not only massive, but allow for seamless passage across wide expanses of the realm. In order to maintain this seamlessness, however, we were forced to heavily reuse assets, resulting in static, repetitive areas.
To provide our users with areas that feel fresh and dynamic throughout the extended lifespan of the game, we are both revamping and redesigning area maps. We hope that this, in turn, will equate to increased opportunities for adventure."

"・Abolishing seamless areas to allow for more dynamic map design"

Quoted from the first FFXIV:ARR Roadmap
Link below:

http://gdl.square-enix.com/ffxiv/dow...Outline_EN.pdf

[Alhanelem]

Cry as much as you want, but the PS3 version is here to stay, and PC gamers that actually know how this works have nothing to worry about it.

You're right, it is here to stay. I'm not crying- I'm simply posing a logical argument about what would be better for the game- regardless of whether or not it will actually happen.

Nope. The problem does not exist, as assets can be downgraded with a single click activating a batch operation.

The problem does exist. batch-downgrading assets doesn't solve the issue at hand.

There's no reason to believe that support will be dropped any time soon.

Who said anything about soon? It took 10 years of FFXI before PS2 support began the process of being dropped in FFXI. It *will* happen, eventually. Then you'll have a million threads bitching about the support drop and how "we're still customers too" and "we shouldn't have to buy a new console to play the game" - and on that last part, I agree- if only they bought a PC, it would have lasted longer before even needing upgrades, and you could perform those upgrades for less than buying a new console.

And? It doesn't matter of the PS3 version is held back. That's the problem of PS3 players.

A problem that is better solved by not having the PS3 version at all- The extra customers aren't worth it when they become disgruntled squeaky wheels years down the road.

[Abriael]

You're right, it is here to stay. I'm not crying- I'm simply posing a logical argument about what would be better for the game- regardless of whether or not it will actually happen.

Only, your argument doesn't include much logic and especially it doesn't include much knowledge about the topic at hand.

The problem does exist. batch-downgrading assets doesn't solve the issue at hand.

Only it does. That's how you fit a game from a superior platform into an inferior one.

Who said anything about soon? It took 10 years of FFXI before PS2 support began the process of being dropped in FFXI. It *will* happen, eventually. Then you'll have a million threads bitching about the support drop and how "we're still customers too" and "we shouldn't have to buy a new console to play the game"

It's not my responsibility to worry about bitching nor is yours. FFXI is still alive and kicking, despite the bitches. This is a technical discussion, not a discussion about people bitching because maybe, who knows, support for their platform will be dropped several years from now.

- and on that last part, I agree- if only they bought a PC, it would have lasted longer before even needing upgrades, and you could perform those upgrades for less than buying a new console.

Not everyone wants to bother with all the additional work a PC brings. Which is why consoles have a bigger installed base than gaming PC. A lot of people just want to put the disc in and play and bringing in that *massive* playerbase can only be good for PC players as well.

The more money a game makes, the more it'll be supported, on all platforms.

[Alhanelem]

That's your personal problem, and has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

On the contrary, it has everything to do with the subject at hand, because the quality of the game is the whole point of this debate- People who don't want the PS3 version to exist don't want it to exist because it will bring down the quality of the game- at the very least for the people who buy the lesser version.

You do not need 8347265873465873465 players to have a successful MMO- better to have a quality experience on one platform than a lesser quality experience on several. As long as the game is profitable, it will be supported. Everquest is still running after all these years- Does it have a huge playerbase? No. Does it make money? Yes. Therefore, it keeps running.

[Abriael]

On the contrary, it has everything to do with the subject at hand, because the quality of the game is the whole point of this debate- People who don't want the PS3 version to exist don't want it to exist because it will bring down the quality of the game- at the very least for the people who buy the lesser version.

LOL. People that don't want the PS3 version do so just because of an irrational fear that it will hold back the PC version, as many posts on this thread demonstrate.

It has nothing to do with the quality of the PS3 version, that we didn't see yet anyway. if you're not a PS3 gamer you have no place deciding for them if they should prefer playing the game with a quality that fits their console or not playing it at all.

You do not need 8347265873465873465 players to have a successful MMO- better to have a quality experience on one platform than a lesser quality experience on several. As long as the game is profitable, it will be supported. Everquest is still running after all these years- Does it have a huge playerbase? No. Does it make money? Yes. Therefore, it keeps running.

The more paying players you have, the higher your budget, the more you can spend on the game, the higher quality you can push. The more you can afford spreading your target further with more localizations, more platforms, more content, allowing the game to grow upon itself. This is an iron-clad equation.

It's the difference between a game that survives and a game that thrives. You seem to want the game to merely survive. Obviously that's a completely illogical standpoint.

[Demacus]

On the contrary, it has everything to do with the subject at hand, because the quality of the game is the whole point of this debate- People who don't want the PS3 version to exist don't want it to exist because it will bring down the quality of the game- at the very least for the people who buy the lesser version.

Are you saying that people who choose to buy the lesser quality version, in this case the PS3 version, will be upset for doing so? While I will not disagree that there are probably people who are like that I would say to them that they should have bought the PC version instead. However, I dont thing this is the case. My wife has been thinking about playing ARR when it is released. With only one computer in the house the PS3 is an option for her. I know that for alot of us who own a nice gaming PC, we like to see how high of a benchmark score we can get, or how many FPS we have when running at max settings, but for alot of players none of this matters. (Dont get me wrong, Im an old school gamer. I could still go back and play the original Zelda and love it) Graphics is really the only big difference between the two versions and for some players, like my wife, they could care less. The core of what makes this game is still the same core that we all love. So I just dont see how having a "lesser version" would cause problems.

You do not need 8347265873465873465 players to have a successful MMO- better to have a quality experience on one platform than a lesser quality experience on several. As long as the game is profitable, it will be supported. Everquest is still running after all these years- Does it have a huge playerbase? No. Does it make money? Yes. Therefore, it keeps running.

I dont understand what you mean by having a lesser quality experience on several platforms. Are you saying that because the PS3 version exists that its going to bring down the quality of your PC playing experience? Please explain. In your previous comment you said that the lesser quality experience would at the very least only affect the people who buy the lesser version.

[Reynhart]

On the contrary, it has everything to do with the subject at hand, because the quality of the game is the whole point of this debate- People who don't want the PS3 version to exist don't want it to exist because it will bring down the quality of the game- at the very least for the people who buy the lesser version.

Would you prefer SE remove the FFXIV configuration program and force players to play with the highest specs simply because you think less powerful PC will "bring down the quality of the game" ?

Soon, PS3-reluctant-players will say "People will less than 6000 on the benchmark, you're not allowed to play the game cause you're spoiling our fun !!!"

[Abriael]

Would you prefer SE remove the FFXIV configuration program and force players to play with the highest specs simply because you think less powerful PC will "bring down the quality of the game" ?

Soon, PS3-reluctant-players will say "People will less than 6000 on the benchmark, you're not allowed to play the game cause you're spoiling our fun !!!"

Haha, gotta say, I loved this one.