The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
But (IMHO) that's also the beauty of SE's approach. Instead of making a last gen MMO that anyone can run but looks dated as the next line of MMOs come out, they're leading the charge. And if you don't currently have a PC that runs XIV at a level you're happy with, you could upgrade or use the PS3: a system that should have 45 million units sold by release, and is available for less than 300 bucks if you don't already have one in your living room.
The PS3 will save this game for sure. But IDK if you remember a few years back when VANGUARD came out with insane PC requirements like FFXIV is today. The game was a total flop because no one could afford a PC to run the game. Good thing for SE is the PS3 is flying off the store shelf as fast as retailers can restock them.
I guess on some level, it was unavoidable. The denial and rage, I mean. We were told a year ago that XIV's hardware requirements for PC would be quite high. And just like anything/everything else SE told us that people didn't want to believe, everyone tried to downplay it. "No, they wouldn't do that...they'll probably just <whatever> instead." And for the last several months we're seeing a trend emerge for XIV that could basically be summed up as, "If SE says it will be so, it's a pretty safe bet that it will be so." Much as I hate to see people disappointed after clinging to faint hope for so long, I look at this as a positive thing. Hopefully, and with a little luck, people will start paying attention to what SE says and stop rationalizing their prefered alternatives in its place. I think that would be a big step forward for the community as a whole.
I understand what you are saying here, but please try to understand this:
SE saying that the graphic demands would be high is somewhat vague. To me, you are pretty much going to need a high end gaming machine to run FF XIV the way it's meant to be played. They never really gave us anything to compare in their statement. My PC is 6 months old, and scored at highest a 533 on the benchmark. I'm a gamer, so i already realized that this piece of crap probably wouldn't be good enough, but most people aren't computer savvy enough to come to the same realization.
I think the problem stems from the fact that most people are "not a computer person" anyway, and take whatever they're told to mean whatever they think they're being told.
e.g.: The "All I do is use Facebook and email pictures of my kids" people who get sold $1100 systems because "It's way faster, and it has a thousand gigabites of memory! (sic)" despite the fact that a 1 TB HD is not going to be even 25% filled by this user, EVER, and a Quad Core processor is wasted on someone who isn't going to run anything more elaborate than IE and AIM. ****, the only reason they would arguably "need" a better processor and RAM is to compensate for all the toolbars and free offers and other junk they're going to sh*t up their computer with.
Now the situation we currently have, is the same, but different. There are three types of gamers. There are the types of gamers who are ready and willing to fork out big bucks for a $3000 (or higher) system that is usually way overpowered for 95% of the games currently available, just so that they can run everything on max without the system breaking a sweat, and then there are the gamers who build rigs at $700-1200 which can run 95% of the games currently available at max settings, and they would have to adjust the sliders down to run the other 5% on "default".
And then there's the third category, people who can play 85% of the games at max, 10% at default, and if they ever try out the top 5%, they get blindsided when their system chokes. Many of them tend to blame the game because if their system can play 95% of games, then it can play 100%, and this is clearly just a bad game.
Here's my thoughts, and make note of the word "probably" to indicate "There are exceptions". If you're one of them, you don't need to argue with me, because you're right, and you don't need me to tell you that. If you feel you NEED to argue with me in an effort to PROVE you're right, you're probably wrong.
If your system shipped with XP or Vista, it's probably in need of an overhaul (processor/motherboard/RAM/video), regardless of whether you updated it to 7.
If you built your system before Windows 7 was released as a retail/OEM purchase, the above still applies.
If your system shipped with 7 Home Basic or Starter, it probably needs either a better processor or more/better RAM or a new video card.
If you built your system and installed Windows 7 Home Basic or Starter, shame on you.
If your video card currently sells for under $100 on newegg, you probably need a new video card. Retail stores overprice video cards to ****, so the fact that you may have paid $150 in Worst Buy does not mean that the card isn't worth substantially less. I'd personally advise $130-180 if you consider yourself a "serious gamer on a budget" (which the higher end gamers would argue is an oxymoron, but let's not get into that)
If your processor isn't at least a quad core, consider upgrading your CPU. This may require a motherboard upgrade too. Look to spend $300-450 between the two if you're interested in upgrading but on a budget.
If you have less than 4 GB RAM, upgrade to at least 4 GB. More is better, but 2x2 GB is relatively inexpensive. If you're using DDR RAM, you would benefit highly from upgrading to DDR3. If you're using DDR2, upgrading to DDR3 may provide a boost.
Overall, if you're only concerned with price, the PS3 is cheaper than upgrading a motherboard/processor, but not a mid range video card and RAM.
Personally, I don't like paying more than $199 for ANY console and would rather drop 500-700 to upgrade my gaming rig, but that's just my opinion, and yours may differ.
And honestly, I'm kinda glad that FFXIV's requirements are so high in a way, because after I just got finished fully overhauling my system (and giving the old parts to my fiancee), I'd be pretty annoyed if I found out my old system could run it without problems. Although at the same time, it still means hers is going to need an upgrade, which is going to cost more money, so that kinda sucks too.
Chances are, if we haven't upgraded hers by then, I may end up just trying to install my copy on both systems and see if I can run hers at ultra super omg awful settings, just for the **** of it. Worst case it still runs on my system and all I'm out is install time.
As for the people who are getting sub 1k scores, ya can't really return a PC game.
Tinfoil hat: Maybe they're making the requirements so high to force PC players onto consoles to "reduce cheating"? Doubt this is true, but *shrug* Edited, Jun 16th 2010 3:13pm by Mikhalia