Also, someone said graphics rarely make or break a game? That person must have been living under a rock because all people seem to care about these days are graphics, which is why people continue to compare every game to "Crysis on max on settings" which btw isn't the greatest game outside of it's graphics...so to people these days graphics can indeed make or break a game.
If this was directed at me, please read what I said again. If it comes between spending time and resources on either cosmetic upgrades, or content/gameplay development, I would prefer the latter.
Nope, wasn't directed to you at all.
Also as for a link to when they said it would be developed on PC first, it's all over the net, it was said during gamescom interviews, since PC technology is dynamic while console technology is static, they said developing it on PC first will allow them to push the game further than being held back by a console limitation because if you've had any development experience you know you can and will hit a console limitation at some point and you can't do anything about it but work around it for so long, whereas with PCs, better technology becomes available and the limitation you could run into vanishes.
They said their main issue was having FFXI on the PS2 first, which is when they began hitting limitations compared to if they developed on PC first, because looking at PS2 and PCs in 2001 when FFXI was developed, to now you can tell there wasn't much to be done, but PCs now compared to then? Dual-Quad cores are standard, and then the PS3 doesn't have as many limitations like the PS2 did nor does the 360, so developing for the PC then porting it over to consoles makes most sense to keep the game from being hindered by technological limitations, because the PS3 and 360 are virtually PCs. This is why Tanaka basically said they were going to utilize the most current technology possible (the PS3 is a few years old now) which is why they mentioned PC development over console development as the base platform.