They should scrap the PS3 version.

[Ladon]

Yoshi-p said that he going to keep updating the look of FFXIV for the PC version. Which mean a high end PC today can play max setting maybe in 2-4years it can only play med setting.

Understood but he likely just means improved assets for the PC version, higher quality shaders, more detailed, larger textures.

This doesn't mean they are going to be able to add assets though. They can add zones no problem (big reason why the seamless design was scrapped so that they can get this running on the PS3) but they are not going to be able to add very many more common assets (eg player weapons and armor) because they would need to be added to both version and there simply isn't enough memory on the PS3 to do so. They -might- be able to do some creative texture swapping with some LOD tricks like UE3 does but more model variation is going to be out of the question.

Now they might be budgeting memory on the current version for another expansion maybe two so they can add a handful of new item looks, but it is without question already impacting design decisions in ARR. No variation of animations across races for example and the relatively small zones are already an example.

[Zenaku]

Understood but he likely just means improved assets for the PC version, higher quality shaders, more detailed, larger textures.

This doesn't mean they are going to be able to add assets though. They can add zones no problem (big reason why the seamless design was scrapped so that they can get this running on the PS3) but they are going to be able to add very many more common assets (eg player weapons and armor) because they would need to be added to both version and there simply isn't enough memory on the PS3 to do so. They -might- be able to do some creative texture swapping with some LOD tricks like UE3 does but more model variation is going to be out of the question.

Now they might be budgeting memory on the current version for another expansion maybe two so they can add a handful of new item looks, but it is without question already impacting design decisions in ARR. No variation of animations across races for example and the relatively small zones are already an example.

When you talking about memory are you talking about the RAM on the ps3 or the HDD?

[Reynhart]

They are already expressed concerns with the limited memory on the PS3 just getting the first ARR version up and running. It does not bode well for the future of the game already as now they are forced into a parity with the PS3 in this area. I fully expect simple re-textures and recolors of current gear when adding future gear now because of this, just like with FF11.

Memory limitations is why zones are split into smaller parts, because PS3 can't load a whole region in its RAM.
If you think animations will be the problems, you're deliberately forgetting that FF XIV has very few different animations , especially compared to some offline games...that run perfectly on PS3.

The numbers of characters on screen will also be fewer on the PS3, but it isn't really an issue, cause you'll never have hundreds of mobs and players anywhere besides towns where you don't need to be focused.

EDIT : By the way, everybody remembers the "Sorry, no new animation on FFXI because of PS2 limitations"
Guess what...we've been treated new weapon skills with totally different animations...and the PS2 can display it, what a shock !
Without even considering all the new designs for armors and monster that we had throughout the years and still have with the next expansion.

[Ladon]

When you talking about memory are you talking about the RAM on the ps3 or the HDD?

RAM. The M is for memory.

For those not aware how this works I'll try a simple explanation. When a zone 'loads' it is moving all needed graphic assets (models, textures, lighting info etc) to RAM. Basically there are two types of assets, local assets and common assets. Local assets are pretty much the environment and NPCs that are present in the current zone. These can change as you zone as Limsa is going to have a different local asset set as Gridania. Adding a bunch of zones isn't a problem since you just have to make sure the current zone fits into memory and you don't need the assets from another zone loaded.

The second type of assets are common assets. These are the assets that are going to cause problems with the PS3 version. Common assets are assets that must always be loaded along with the local assets. These assets are things such as player models, armor textures, weapon textures, animations, etc. You have to load ALL of these along with every zone into memory because there is a possibility of any combination of them being needed to display since players can have any number of gear configurations on the various races. Common assets are only going to be able to get so big before they no longer can fit in the PS3 memory along with the local assets. So they are going to have to limit these as it is expected all items in the PC version are present in the PS3 version.

EDIT : By the way, everybody remembers the "Sorry, no new animation on FFXI because of PS2 limitations"
Guess what...we've been treated new weapon skills with totally different animations...and the PS2 can display it, what a shock !
Without even considering all the new designs for armors and monster that we had throughout the years and still have with the next expansion.

FFXI used a simple animation system in comparison to what ARR is using. ARR animation data is magnitudes larger than FFXI animation data so adding one in ARR requires a LOT more resources than in did in FFXI. Added FFXI armor design was also mostly just texture recolors and again the assets were MUCH smaller. The problem here is that assist RAM requirements for ARR have grown MUCH larger in comparison to the increase in available RAM on the PS3 compared to asset sizes on the PS2 and its available RAM.

[TAS]

I just finished watching the "Tour of Eorzea" video. They should really consider scrapping the PS3 version.

There was so much screen tearing and the frame rate was plain horrible. "We're bringing in the guys from Sony" doesn't give me much hope.

If they try to actually sell that for money, it will just piss even more fans off.

Who else agrees they should give up on the PS3 version? Release ARR for PC and perhaps consider a future PS4 release.

If we're trying to think realisticly then realisticly the game should have been shut down when it was originally deemed a flopped but they didn't. They kept working at it, it got better and FFXIV: ARR could very well stand to be a higly successful MMO.

SE and Yoshi proves that something like this can be done despite the means being unrealistic. The Ps3 is no exception.

[Abriael]

declaring someone "doesn't know what they're talking about" doesn't make it so.

No. Your misguided arguments make it so.

It is a completely FITting example. You are just in denial.

It doesn't fit because the lead platforms are switched. It's a very basic and understandable concept.

The game's assets are not the problem. Lack of memory and lack of hard disk space on a fixed platform were the problem. There were tons of things they couldn't do with the game purely because they had used up all the memory of the PS2 already.

That's because the PS2 was the *lead development platform*. having the inferior platform as the lead development platform forces the developer to be held to the lowest common denominator. Having the superior platform as the lead simply does not.

That's all well and good but why bother releasing an inferior version?

Because it opens the game to an IMMENSELY BIGGER fanbase than that of PC gamers (and one that is very sensitive to the Final Fantasy franchise at it), meaning more players, more profits, and more support on the long run. Again. Basic principle.

It's a principle called: 70+ million potential customers worldwide.

A PC capable of running the game doesn't cost much more than a game console.

Only twice as much on the bare minimum. Sorry, but you're running out of excuses.

My point about MMORPGs needing an upgradable platform is completely ON the mark.

You saying so doesn't make it so. You've been told why it's off mark, and you really have no argument.

The PS3 can't limit PC in any way. Several people, including Yoshida, already explained it to you. You seem to think to know better, but hello? You don't.

Memory limitations is why zones are split into smaller parts, because PS3 can't load a whole region in its RAM.

Nope. Zones have been split to reduce load on the servers. It has nothing to do with memory limitations, as assets are streamed. Games don't need to load all the assets of a zone into the ram anymore. if it did, even 4 gigs wouldn't nearly be enough.

[Ladon]

Nope. Zones have been split to reduce load on the servers. It has nothing to do with memory limitations, as assets are streamed. Games don't need to load all the assets of a zone into the ram anymore. if it did, even 4 gigs wouldn't nearly be enough.

That's part of it but there are methods to deal with this in a seamless world as well. They were also obviously split to deal with memory limitations as well.

Also you can't really stream the assets of a MMO or any online game for that matter very well because it's too expensive to keep track of what you would need to server side so that the client is able to stream in the asset before it is displayed. Streaming is only realistic when each display frame is predictable. MMOs are anything but this.

[Abriael]

That's part of it. They were also obviously split to deal with memory limitations.

Also you can't really stream the assets of a MMO or any online game for that matter very well because it's too expensive to keep track of what you would need to server side so that the client is able to stream in the asset before it is displayed. Streaming is only realistic when each display frame is predictable. MMOs are anything but this.

Almost all modern MMORPGs do it without a single problem. Streaming the assets is very possible, and in *very few games* each display frame is predictable.

There's absolutely no way all the assets for a zone can be fully stored in the ram of even most PCs, even more so on the much more limited video ram. Most modern MMOS are designed to be able to run on cards with 512 Mb.

The lesser predictability of a MMORPG (that isn't even so relevant, because the only really unpredictable assets are player character assets, that of course have nothing to do with zones) can be addressed by raising the level of pre-streaming.

Server load is the whole picture.

[Alhanelem]

It doesn't fit because the lead platforms are switched. It's a very basic and understandable concept.

Your argument is centered around "the lead platforms are switched." Yes, this is a "basic" and "understandable" concept, however, your argument is still flawed.

That really doesn't matter. Even if the "main" version isn't held back, the other versions still are, and you still end up buying a new console later to keep playing when support is dropped. The problem of "we can't do this" is less pronounced, but problems still exist- Problems that would never happen if the game wasn't released on those non-upgradable platforms in the first place.

You saying so doesn't make it so. You've been told why it's off mark, and you really have no argument.

Wrong. I told you why it is ON the mark, and I do have an argument- which I spent a 10 mile long post explaining, and have continued to elaborate on there.

Nope. Zones have been split to reduce load on the servers. It has nothing to do with memory limitations, as assets are streamed.

They are both factors. Yes, assets are streamed, but there is still non-asset (assets meaning art/sounds/models/etc) information that needs to be tracked and loaded. The larger the area, the more of that information is present, regardless of currently loaded assets. Beyond that, larger areas expoentially increase the amount of CPU time needed for AI pathfinding- a topic that SE expanded on quite a bit in interviews. Smaller areas was both to accomodate the PS3 but also to optimize and improve for PC. Kind of a shame as I liked the semi-seamless world but you win some you lose some- Since that isn't just about PS3 limitations (though it is partially), I'm not as bothered by it.

It is udeniably much easier to make a game for a single platform that is well suited to the needs of the game than to sprawl out and put the game on as many other platforms as possible, many of which are not as well suited to the kind of game this is.

Yes, expanding to more platforms increases the number of people you can reach. But if the game is of poorer quality on those platforms, you risk alienating those people and then they won't even buy the PC version because they'll assume it's just as bad.

Only twice as much on the bare minimum. Sorry, but you're running out of excuses.

Deluxe Wii U is $350. I can probably build a PC without a monitor (connect it to the TV) that can run the game for that price or a little more.

[Ladon]

Almost all modern MMORPGs do it without a single problem. Streaming the assets is very possible, and in *very few games* each display frame is predictable.

There's absolutely no way all the assets for a zone can be fully stored in the ram of even most PCs, even more so on the much more limited video ram. Most modern MMOS are designed to be able to run on cards with 512 Mb.

The lesser predictability of a MMORPG (that isn't even so relevant, because the only really unpredictable assets are player character assets, that of course have nothing to do with zones) can be addressed by raising the level of pre-streaming.

Server load is the whole picture.

You can't stream common assets, this is why games have minimum memory requirements to begin with. You could stream local assets but you'd still need to keep your common asset memory size constant for performance reasons.

Also I don't really see any evidence the ARR engine is streaming any assets except LOD. That will save on mipmapping memory requirements and nothing much else.