Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
This Forum is Read Only

PS3 Delay and Beta - Tanaka InterviewFollow

#52 Jul 09 2010 at 2:00 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
**
520 posts
RufuSwho wrote:
Here's a thought. Suppose the PS3 can't handle future FFXIV expansion but the PS4 can. Would they change consoles mid-way through FFXIV's lifespan?


They would be twice as likely to develop for the XBOX360 before developing for the next playstation. So that means 0.01% that they'll develop for PS4, and 0.02% for XBOX.
____________________________
FFXI: Nyse - PLD, DNC, DRG
Asura Server

FFXIV: Nyse Celestre - Working on PLD
Ridill Server...for now.
#53 Jul 09 2010 at 2:51 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Here's a thought. Suppose the PS3 can't handle future FFXIV expansion but the PS4 can. Would they change consoles mid-way through FFXIV's lifespan?



MMO's rarely upgrade their minimum system requirements post-launch for fear of alienating people playing on the old platforms or systems.
#54runway, Posted: Jul 09 2010 at 3:53 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nope I'm still here just sitting back and watching the fanboys accept "Technical difficulties" as an excuse from SE who has spent years developing on the PS3 and 2 weeks ago was still pushing "simultaneous release"
#55 Jul 09 2010 at 3:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
O FFS

New rule: don't even talk about him.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#56 Jul 09 2010 at 6:20 PM Rating: Good
***
2,535 posts
RufuSwho wrote:
I want links to this $350 budget PC and $50 grapchics card, please?


Not the best brand, but still, 4GB RAM, Athlon II X2 215 (Dual core, 2.7 GHz)

Any of these video cards, starting at $49. The HD 4650 is roughly equivalent to the HD 2900 which is the minimum spec.

Compared to SE's minimum requirement, you get a more recent processor architecture running 35% faster, twice as much RAM, and an equivalent graphics card.


Or for a bit more money, there's this PC, (with Athlon II X4 630 (Quad core, 2.8 GHz) and 6GB RAM) with this graphics card, (Radeon 5750 GPU) - $725 total for (compared to minimum spec) twice as many CPU cores using running 40% faster, triple the RAM, and a much superior graphics card.
#57 Jul 09 2010 at 7:00 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
BastokFL wrote:
RufuSwho wrote:
I want links to this $350 budget PC and $50 grapchics card, please?


Not the best brand, but still, 4GB RAM, Athlon II X2 215 (Dual core, 2.7 GHz)

Any of these video cards, starting at $49. The HD 4650 is roughly equivalent to the HD 2900 which is the minimum spec.

Compared to SE's minimum requirement, you get a more recent processor architecture running 35% faster, twice as much RAM, and an equivalent graphics card.


Good Processor [_]
Good Video Card [_]
Makes a Good Foot Rest [X]


BastokFL wrote:
Or for a bit more money, there's this PC, (with Athlon II X4 630 (Quad core, 2.8 GHz) and 6GB RAM) with this graphics card, (Radeon 5750 GPU) - $725 total for (compared to minimum spec) twice as many CPU cores using running 40% faster, triple the RAM, and a much superior graphics card.


Quad Core Processor [X]
Radeon 5700 series [X]
Makes a Good Foot Rest [X]

Edited, Jul 10th 2010 6:21am by Mikhalia
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#58 Jul 10 2010 at 3:17 AM Rating: Good
***
2,535 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
BastokFL wrote:
RufuSwho wrote:
I want links to this $350 budget PC and $50 grapchics card, please?


[link=]Not the best brand, but still, 4GB RAM, Athlon II X2 215 (Dual core, 2.7 GHz)[/link]

Any of these video cards, starting at $49. The HD 4650 is roughly equivalent to the HD 2900 which is the minimum spec.

Compared to SE's minimum requirement, you get a more recent processor architecture running 35% faster, twice as much RAM, and an equivalent graphics card.


Good Processor [_]
Good Video Card [_]
Makes a Good Foot Rest [X]


The goal was not a "good system, the goal was a cheapo machine that still at least meets minimum spec".
#59 Jul 10 2010 at 4:20 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
BastokFL wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:
BastokFL wrote:
RufuSwho wrote:
I want links to this $350 budget PC and $50 grapchics card, please?


[link=]Not the best brand, but still, 4GB RAM, Athlon II X2 215 (Dual core, 2.7 GHz)[/link]

Any of these video cards, starting at $49. The HD 4650 is roughly equivalent to the HD 2900 which is the minimum spec.

Compared to SE's minimum requirement, you get a more recent processor architecture running 35% faster, twice as much RAM, and an equivalent graphics card.


Good Processor [_]
Good Video Card [_]
Makes a Good Foot Rest [X]


The goal was not a "good system, the goal was a cheapo machine that still at least meets minimum spec".


By recommending a machine that is going to perform extremely poorly, you're doing a disservice to anyone who lacks knowledge and reads your post. Unless people quantify these expensive doorstops with "DISCLAIMER: This system will -just barely- perform at -minimum settings-", you're going to have people buying cheap systems, and three months from now when they can't return them and are stuck with them, they go to install XIV and will be extremely ****** about their performance.

Then, they will come here, because THAT SYSTEM was recommended to them by someone, and they bought it with NO IDEA how horribly it will perform. Then, when people like me tell them three months from now:

"Yeah, you're going to want to upgrade that Athlon X2 to an Athlon X4, and you're going to want to upgrade that Radeon 4650 to at least a 5770"

...they will get ****** at -ME- and vehemently insist they were told the system they saw posted on here "will run the game fine" and/or "meets the minimum specs", not understanding that "minimum specs" means "minimum performance"

No matter how much I try to combat this, in three months, these boards are going to be flooded with "Why does my brand new PC (that someone on here told me to buy) run FFXIV so poorly?" And the people who are kind enough to stick around to try to help them are going to have to put up with some really ****** off people, as a result of posts that suggest budget rigs without any warning that the system is horrible.

I'm trying to provide these warnings to people so that when they go to make a purchasing decision, they buy something they will be happy with, not something they will need to be replacing parts in a sparse three months from now.

Honestly, if you suggest a **** poor rig to someone, and they buy it based on your post on this thread, and then three months from now they come here and complain about how their brand new system, suggested to them by BastokFL, looks like ***, even with the settings all the way down, what should I do?

Should I tell them they need to upgrade their brand new system and get an earful about how "it's brand new and doesn't need upgrades"?

Should I tell them that the system they bought was a bad one and have them insist "That BastokFL guy told me this would run it!"?

Should I just ignore their posts and not help them at all, since no matter what I do to help, they're just going to direct their anger at me?

I'm being serious here: Despite the best efforts of several posters in several threads to set people up with decent or good systems that will run the game on decent or good settings, there's still the occasional post in here that suggests a horrible system to someone. If someone is lurking and no one warns them about the type of performance to expect (note that on nearly every rig I've made suggestions on, I've coupled it with an approximate benchmark score that this system should meet when bought/built), they are going to buy the system expecting good performance and will be sorely disappointed.

What's the best way to deal with this problem, in your opinion?
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#60 Jul 10 2010 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good
***
2,535 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
By recommending a machine that is going to perform extremely poorly, you're doing a disservice to anyone who lacks knowledge and reads your post. Unless people quantify these expensive doorstops with "DISCLAIMER: This system will -just barely- perform at -minimum settings-", you're going to have people buying cheap systems, and three months from now when they can't return them and are stuck with them, they go to install XIV and will be extremely ****** about their performance.


I am not recommending anything - it's a thought experiment. Relevant quote from upthread is relevant:

I wrote:
Which is really sad considering the PC version doesn't really push the limits of what a PC can do - I can buy a brand new $370 budget PC from Best Buy, slap in a $50 graphics card (that uses a mid-range previous-generation GPU), and exceed the game's minimum requirement. A $570 low-end PC with a $125 HD 5770 is comfortably beyond minimum; a high-end gaming PC is so far beyond overkill for this game that it's almost laughable.


Which is undeniably true - a game can't claim to target high-end and future PCs and yet have a minimum spec, as FFXIV does, that can be met with budget parts or outdated parts, especially not outdated mid-range parts.

Again, minimum spec is a dual core (standard on new computers) Core 2 or K8 (current standard for Intel CPUs is a Nehalem core on all but the lowest-end, which still use Core 2; standard for AMD CPUs is K10) at 2 GHz (new computers start, for all intents and purposes, at 2.5 GHz) with 2 GB RAM (again, standard on new computers), and a GeForce 9600 or Radeon HD 2900 (both of which are two generations old now; in fact, the HD 2900 can't even be bought new anymore) with at least 512 MB of VRAM (which is, again, standard on modern graphics cards), running Windows XP or higher (all new PCs ship with Windows 7).

In other words, nearly any new pre-built PC available will have, compared to the minimum requirement, a faster, more advanced CPU and at least as much RAM with significantly higher memory bandwidth (a minimum spec PC uses DDR2, because that's what the Athlon 64 is compatible with - new PCs use DDR3), and essentially any but the lowest-tier of the most recent two generations of GPU will be more powerful than the min spec GPU.

Scraping the bottom of the barrel, a system that can play FFXIV can be put together for about $420. Add $75 to get a 5770 instead of a 4650, $50 to add 2 GB of RAM, and $100 to upgrade the CPU to an Athlon II X4 2.6 GHz and you're comfortably above minimum spec for a total of about $650.

SE's claims to the contrary, this is not a game that is aimed at the high end.



Quote:
...they will get ****** at -ME- and vehemently insist they were told the system they saw posted on here "will run the game fine" and/or "meets the minimum specs", not understanding that "minimum specs" means "minimum performance"


Anyone who does not understand just by looking that "minimum spec" equals "low performance" deserves whatever they get. Reading is fundamental.

Quote:
Honestly, if you suggest a **** poor rig to someone, and they buy it based on your post on this thread, and then three months from now they come here and complain about how their brand new system, suggested to them by BastokFL, looks like ***, even with the settings all the way down, what should I do?


And again, it was not a suggestion. I merely pointed out that one could slap a budget graphics card into a budget PC and exceed the minimum spec. Someone asked for the relevant links, and I provided them.

Anyone who takes a PC build that's shown in a thread that is titled "PS3 delay and beta" (instead of the dozens of more relevantly-titled threads just on the front page) without reading enough of the thread to get the proper context, again, deserves whatever they get.

Quote:
Should I just ignore their posts and not help them at all, since no matter what I do to help, they're just going to direct their anger at me?


Yes. You can't fix stupid.

Quote:
(note that on nearly every rig I've made suggestions on, I've coupled it with an approximate benchmark score that this system should meet when bought/built)


If anything, this strikes me as at least as irresponsible as anything you accuse me of doing. You can't put a benchmark score on a PC build without basically building it and running the benchmark on it; simply witness the many posts from people with significantly higher/lower benchmark scores than their hardware should be capable of (or who are unable to even run the benchmark even though the should by all rights be able to). It may be educated guesswork (with a large enough sample base), but it is guesswork nonetheless, and by doing so, you're setting yourself up for whiny posts of the "you said this PC would get this score on the benchmark and it didn't" nature.

Quote:
What's the best way to deal with this problem, in your opinion?


Don't. Not are problems need fixing, and not all problems are within your power to fix.
#61 Jul 10 2010 at 3:56 PM Rating: Decent
**
495 posts
Doesn't sound like the same "Ps2 Limitations" that plagued FFXI at least. Since the game is PC from the ground up, it just means they have to consolidate the visual impact of the PS3 version during a port down and they are now taking the time to work out the issues so that the game works competantly and the PS3 users can still get the same experience with just fewer visual nuances.

What people don't seem to realize about the FFXI when they said PS2 limitiations is the fact that the PC version of FFXI was a glorified emulation of the PS2 release. By consequences anything that couldn't/wouldn't work in the PS2 release, could not be used on the PC. Because they are porting everything down this time (and even using different assets between the two versions), the actual limitations for the PC should be negligible outside of the development staff just being lazy/feel it's too much work to change. I still look forward to the PS3 release and hope they get the problems worked out as soon as possible without damaging the final product in the end. But I am also getting tired of the "PS2 limitations = eventual PS3 Limitations" false equvalency. The only real limitations that will be with this game this time around is the developers not wanting to change something because of too much work.
#62 Jul 10 2010 at 5:35 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
BastokFL wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:
By recommending a machine that is going to perform extremely poorly, you're doing a disservice to anyone who lacks knowledge and reads your post. Unless people quantify these expensive doorstops with "DISCLAIMER: This system will -just barely- perform at -minimum settings-", you're going to have people buying cheap systems, and three months from now when they can't return them and are stuck with them, they go to install XIV and will be extremely ****** about their performance.


I am not recommending anything - it's a thought experiment.

Anyone who does not understand just by looking that "minimum spec" equals "low performance" deserves whatever they get. Reading is fundamental.


You know as well as I do though that people who don't know any better will view it as a recommendation though. I also agree with your statement that "people who don't understand the meaning of the word minimum deserve what they get". It's of little consolation to those people though.

BastokFL wrote:
And again, it was not a suggestion. I merely pointed out that one could slap a budget graphics card into a budget PC and exceed the minimum spec. Someone asked for the relevant links, and I provided them.

Anyone who takes a PC build that's shown in a thread that is titled "PS3 delay and beta" (instead of the dozens of more relevantly-titled threads just on the front page) without reading enough of the thread to get the proper context, again, deserves whatever they get.


Fair enough; I still agree with you, but if you know anything (and you seem to) about technical matters, you'll know as well as me (from firsthand knowledge in both of our cases) that when you tell someone something technical, they tend to hear what they want to hear, and filter out the stuff they don't want to hear, then come complaining to you when they didn't take your advice due to their selective hearing.

BastokFL wrote:
Quote:
Should I just ignore their posts and not help them at all, since no matter what I do to help, they're just going to direct their anger at me?


Yes. You can't fix stupid.


Absolutely no disagreement here.

BastokFL wrote:
Quote:
(note that on nearly every rig I've made suggestions on, I've coupled it with an approximate benchmark score that this system should meet when bought/built)


If anything, this strikes me as at least as irresponsible as anything you accuse me of doing. You can't put a benchmark score on a PC build without basically building it and running the benchmark on it; simply witness the many posts from people with significantly higher/lower benchmark scores than their hardware should be capable of (or who are unable to even run the benchmark even though the should by all rights be able to). It may be educated guesswork (with a large enough sample base), but it is guesswork nonetheless, and by doing so, you're setting yourself up for whiny posts of the "you said this PC would get this score on the benchmark and it didn't" nature.


Technically, I say it "should" benchmark at between X-Y. And it "should". I see your point though.

BastokFL wrote:
Quote:
What's the best way to deal with this problem, in your opinion?


Don't. Not are problems need fixing, and not all problems are within your power to fix.
[/quote]

It's in my nature. Can't help myself. Despite knowing that ******* in a lake won't fill it, I find myself unable to stop.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#63 Jul 11 2010 at 3:36 AM Rating: Good
***
2,535 posts
croythegreat wrote:
What people don't seem to realize about the FFXI when they said PS2 limitiations is the fact that the PC version of FFXI was a glorified emulation of the PS2 release. By consequences anything that couldn't/wouldn't work in the PS2 release, could not be used on the PC.


No, it wasn't.

The PC version was just a badly-made port - it was not emulating the PS2, or doing graphics in software, or any of that other nonsense.

When they say "PS2 limitations", what they mean (when it's not just being used as an excuse to quiet the fanbase) is, because the PS2 only has 32 MB of RAM, they can't make changes that would cause the PS2 client to exceed that. This is why, for example, no single item storage space (inventory, safe, etc.) can hold more than 80 items.

Since every client (PS2, PC, 360) runs in the same game world, and any character can be played on any client, if a design change breaks any client, it can't be implemented at all. It doesn't matter that the PC and 360 clients can support far larger inventories, for example, the PS2 client can't, so they cap at 80 slots.

Quote:
But I am also getting tired of the "PS2 limitations = eventual PS3 Limitations" false equvalency. The only real limitations that will be with this game this time around is the developers not wanting to change something because of too much work.


Consoles age; no console is future-proof.

It is inevitable with a game like this that at some point, the developers will have update ideas that simply cannot be implemented on the PS3 with SE's level of programming talent. When this happens, unless they have platform-specific servers, they will have to either drop PS3 support or drop the change. And with the PS3 already being late in its life-cycle, this will likely come sooner rather than later.
#64 Jul 12 2010 at 12:34 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,178 posts
BastokFL and Mikhalia,
Thanks again for the info. Here's what I've learned from this:

A minimum computer is possible for ~$400, AND buying said computer would be a really bad idea.

Just so you know, someone out there is reading this stuff and making a more informed decision based on it.

I'll likely be able to get a gaming PC in January. I can see now that spending money for something less, so I can have it at release, would be foolish. The many posts here have given me a much better idea of what I'll be looking for.

Thanks guys.

#65 Jul 12 2010 at 6:44 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,801 posts
So basically SE has made the game unplayable for those without cutting edge PCs and those who have PS3s not only have to wait 6 months, but are going to get a scaled down version.

BRILLIANT, SE! Make sure you alienate everyone instead of just 50% of the gamers.
____________________________
WoW -- Zaia -- Dragonmaw -- Mage 80 BABY! Alchemy 450
Also... Hunter 62, Rogue 52, Warrior 66, Warlock 43, Death Knight 70, Shaman Who Cares? ;)

FFXI -- Caia -- Retired/Deleted -- Blm 75, Alchemy 97
Pandimonium server - Rank 10 - Bastok

Zaela Rdm -- 35, Alchemy 45 -- Forced into retirement because I didn't have the right kind of credit card. Hope it was worth 18 bucks a month, SE.

#66 Jul 12 2010 at 6:49 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
XenorVerdix wrote:
PS3 limitations already? lol.
IT BEGINS.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#67 Jul 12 2010 at 7:02 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
bsphil wrote:
XenorVerdix wrote:
PS3 limitations already? lol.
IT BEGINS.


In before PS4 limitations.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#68 Jul 13 2010 at 12:49 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
I'm more concerned about PS5 limitations.
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#69 Jul 15 2010 at 10:29 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
**
611 posts
Won't the system (ps3) be pulling information off the Disc preventing the need for excess RAM. The reason why I ask this is because I do know that all the music and CS are normally read off the Disc. I could be wrong as well.

Probably different with a MMO?

Edited, Jul 16th 2010 12:40am by chomama
____________________________
FFXI Ronyn RDM 75 (R.I.P.) -Fairy / BarretJax 95 MNK (Non-Active) - Asura
Ronin Olorin / Ronyn Oloryn (Active) - Ultros Server

"Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence." - Max Ehrmann
#70 Jul 16 2010 at 6:42 AM Rating: Good
***
2,535 posts
chomama wrote:
Won't the system (ps3) be pulling information off the Disc preventing the need for excess RAM. The reason why I ask this is because I do know that all the music and CS are normally read off the Disc. I could be wrong as well.

Probably different with a MMO?


The client still needs that have a certain amount of data in RAM for the game to run playably - even the fastest hard drive is still incredibly slow compared to RAM.
1 2 Next »
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 26 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (26)