Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

the reason FF14 for the ps3 got delayed OFFICIALLY confirmedFollow

#1 Jul 16 2010 at 11:14 AM Rating: Good
****
4,957 posts
I posted this before but not that theres official confirmation (and not just speculation) Im just doing it again and showing the link:

http://www.nowgamer.com/news/3713/square-enix-trouble-fitting-ffxiv-on-ps3


this sucks, ps3 version isnt even out yet and we're already starting the whole PS3 limitations phase
#2 Jul 16 2010 at 11:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
372 posts
I feel for you... :(
#3 Jul 16 2010 at 11:24 AM Rating: Good
*
242 posts
I'm sure it's buried, but there's already been a pretty vibrant discussion on this topic within the last couple of weeks. It was announced a while ago that it was a limitation on RAM.
____________________________


#4 Jul 16 2010 at 11:27 AM Rating: Good
**
562 posts
Wow. That's gotta be a record. PS3 limitations the year BEFORE the game even comes out. How in the world is this game going to last any type of future updates if it can't even hold the game now.

Unless of course they are trying to fit it into the 40gb PS3. Then I guess I understand.
____________________________
The more I train, the harder I get. The harder I get, the more lethal I am. The more lethal I am, the fewer opponents. The fewer opponents, the less to lose. The less to lose, the more I let up. The more I let up, the more room for mistakes. The more room for mistakes, the more I train.

#5 Jul 16 2010 at 11:32 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
74 posts
Quote:
Unless of course they are trying to fit it into the 40gb PS3. Then I guess I understand.

If Sony wants to prevent the whole world falling over them because FFXIV won't be playable on every PS3 they better make sure it's also playable on the 40GB PS3
This a mistake Microsoft already made and personally i think it's kinda stupid if Sony makes the same mistake.
____________________________
You're never gonna feel You're never gonna heal
You're never gonna know what's fake or real
'Til you know who you are
You're lying to your face And running in a race
You're never gonna win 'til you find your place
And you know who you are
#6 Jul 16 2010 at 11:41 AM Rating: Excellent
*
242 posts
Hard drive size has nothing to do with this.

It's about the PS3's RAM, not HDD.

Also, if you'll notice the requirements that SE has put out for the PC, I believe they say you'll need 15gb free (or maybe those are the beta requirements, I'm sorry I can't recall) on your HDD. That's well below the PS3's 40gb capacity at the low end.

The problem is they have to reduce how much RAM is required to operate the game for the PS3 to operate it properly. I imagine this means finding ways to reduce how much game territory is stored in the RAM at any one time, or texture quality / compression, or something like that.

Don't sweat the 40gb HDD.
____________________________


#7 Jul 16 2010 at 11:47 AM Rating: Good
**
394 posts
JayRams wrote:
Also, if you'll notice the requirements that SE has put out for the PC, I believe they say you'll need 15gb free (or maybe those are the beta requirements, I'm sorry I can't recall) on your HDD.


I think it was 15GB for the install, and then it wants another 12GB in ApplicationData or something. It's a pretty hefty game, but still, given that stuff will need to be inevitably compressed for the PS3, the hard drive requirements for the PS3 won't be the same as on PC.
#8 Jul 16 2010 at 12:09 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
74 posts
It probably (certainly) will fit on the PS3 40GB
BUT.. how many of you have a empty HDD in their PS3? ;)
If FFXIV takes up so much HDD space that it's almost the only thing you can have installed Sony will have some unhappy PS3 owners.
____________________________
You're never gonna feel You're never gonna heal
You're never gonna know what's fake or real
'Til you know who you are
You're lying to your face And running in a race
You're never gonna win 'til you find your place
And you know who you are
#9 Jul 16 2010 at 12:17 PM Rating: Decent
I have a ps3 but for the life of me I can't remember how much RAM it has. Any of you know?
#10 Jul 16 2010 at 12:41 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
* 256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz
* 256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#11 Jul 16 2010 at 12:54 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,957 posts
ReiThor wrote:
Wow. That's gotta be a record. PS3 limitations the year BEFORE the game even comes out. How in the world is this game going to last any type of future updates if it can't even hold the game now.

Unless of course they are trying to fit it into the 40gb PS3. Then I guess I understand.


actually its not the year BEFORE the game comes out, this game was originally supposed to ocme out the same time as the pc, but the RAM reason is teh reason its been delayed for a year (well 6 months actually) so yeah if it werent for this wed all be getting it at the same time
#12 Jul 16 2010 at 1:03 PM Rating: Decent
So i am no techie but 512mb of RAM sounds kinda tiny, my Mac has 8 Gig RAM and most PC's nowadays have 2 -4 GB as standard so is the 512 MB of RAM that the PS3 has really that small or is it a relative thing (i.e. its measured differently on consoles or the achitecture of the RAM has an effect also)?

#13 Jul 16 2010 at 1:04 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
It won't fit in RAM. Hard Drive space is not memory. Despite both being measured in bytes, RAM and Hard Drive space are two TOTALLY different things that people have been confusing for quite some time.
____________________________
[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.
#14 Jul 16 2010 at 1:18 PM Rating: Decent
40 posts
Of course, with the PS3 being released for about 4 years by the time of the PC release of XIV, it's understandable. It's not a young console anymore and it was inevitable that at some point in the life cycle, you'd start to see serious concessions made on PS3 versions of PC games. FFXIV has pretty high system requirements - I doubt many PCs from 2006 would run FFXIV without any upgrades. For instance, looking at the minimum requirements, the first Core 2 Duo 2.0 came out in 4/07, the first GeForce 9600 in 1/08, and 5/07. Now, obviously it's not directly comparable given the nature of consoles, but the PS3 is just suffering similar problems to lots of people with non-new computers.

Edited, Jul 16th 2010 3:19pm by DSzymborski
#15 Jul 16 2010 at 2:04 PM Rating: Decent
This is why Sony should release updated PS3's.

***** making it slim or quieter (although I wouldn't say no to them doing that for no extra charge) but seriously as the years go by why doesn't Sony upgrade things like the RAM as current tech standrds move onwards and upward. Still call it the PS3 but just release with better/current standard specs. It's not like they are unaware of the rate at which the standards rise seemingly over night.

#16 Jul 16 2010 at 2:10 PM Rating: Good
**
592 posts
This does not bode well for expansions. While I don't believe the official minimum requirements of WOW have been updated over the years, each expansion has certainly been more graphics and effects intensive than the one before it. This is also noticeable in FFXI and the Aht Urgan areas where most computers experience some sort of slow down. If the PS3 is struggling already, it is going to be near impossible to provide the same level of graphics going forward that the PC will get. Whether that means the PC gets dumbed down, or they use a different graphics set for the PS3 remains to be seen.
____________________________
Inralkil-Seraph 75NIN/75SAM/68BST

Retired: Inra-Dark Crag 40/40 Witch Elf
Retired: Hollow-Thunderlord 70 Warlock S1/S3 T4 SL/SL
Retired: Horknee-Thunderlord 70 Druid T4/T5 Feral
#17 Jul 16 2010 at 2:11 PM Rating: Excellent
FlogginaDeadHorse wrote:
This is why Sony should release updated PS3's.

***** making it slim or quieter (although I wouldn't say no to them doing that for no extra charge) but seriously as the years go by why doesn't Sony upgrade things like the RAM as current tech standrds move onwards and upward. Still call it the PS3 but just release with better/current standard specs. It's not like they are unaware of the rate at which the standards rise seemingly over night.



Here's the problem with that. Every single PS3 game ever made up to this point has been designed with the current PS3 specs. To release a newer model PS3 would pretty much have no real benefit to all those games. They weren't designed with upgraded specs in mind.

Then, any new games that would come out would probably then be designed with the "Upgraded" PS3. Now, millions of PS3 owners would be crippled with the new games that would come out.


Sure, you can ship a PS3 with a higher HD capacity (and they have), but the PS3 does not use your every day RAM sticks. It's (as I understand it) an entirely different form, more like an integrated board, vs a removable DIMM.

Edited, Jul 16th 2010 1:12pm by Osarion
#18 Jul 16 2010 at 2:13 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
626 posts
yeah it kind of irritates me that people are that reliant on ps3 for mmo gaming.

im a broke as **** bachelor in a crap apartment (only white boy in a 30 mile radius lol) in east los angeles, i saved up for three months to buy a new good graphics card and CPU so that i wouldnt have to rely on my ps3. Im by no means a techy yet even i figured i shouldnt rely on a non upgradable machine for a MMO.

Anyone know if SE ever stated why they want to incorporate the PS3 with actual MMO gaming? not sure if its been stated before.
i figure SE has a long and deep relationship with Sony and probably feels its necessary.

Point being, my 13 year old sister just walked by and said (lol i coulda told them PS3 limitations from the start) which is why im editing this in.

Edited, Jul 16th 2010 4:15pm by pixelpop

Edited, Jul 16th 2010 4:15pm by pixelpop
____________________________

#19 Jul 16 2010 at 3:19 PM Rating: Good
40 posts
They could upgrade the PS3, but then, as others have implied, you also lose one of the defining features of consoles - if the game's made for it, it can run it. There are a lot of people out there that really don't want to have to deal with PC requirements in their gaming, let alone the panoply of possible configurations. They just want to stick a game in and start playing. Start selling PS3/PS31GB/PS3Ultra or whatever and a lot of people are going to give up on it, sadly - it wouldn't be as neat as other configuration changes like hard drive size.
#20 Jul 16 2010 at 3:49 PM Rating: Good
**
749 posts
Quote:
more like an integrated board, vs a removable DIMM.


Probably soldered on, they used to make computers the same way waaaaaaaaay back in the day. They also do this with the macboook air.

Personally, I'm really interested in seeing how this whole thing pans out. XI they limited the PC version to the PS2 spec, and I giggle that the proverbial shoe is now on the other hand. My GFX card ALONE has as much ram as the P[o]S3. . and I'm on a notebook!

I'm wondering if they'll turn down the game for all systems shortly before it comes out to level the field a little bit. I've wondered before how this is going to work out, since the alternative is essentially writing the game twice, one for PC and one for PS3. It just makes more sense to scale it back a little bit and port it.

Part of me hopes I'm wrong, part of me doesn't [my notebook is at the medium to medium high benchmark level, and I'd hate to have to build a whole new machine just for one game when I just got this thing in Feb ;)
____________________________
http://www.rantmedia.ca/newsreal/
http://www.piratepartyradio.com


The Truth is a virus
#21runway, Posted: Jul 16 2010 at 4:50 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Officially SE's stance is "technical difficulties" which is a nice way of saying "sorry we screwed you over PS3 users but we saw a chance to grab some of WOW's user base so we stripped the PS3 development team to push the PC version and we knew all it would take to calm the fan boys down was a technical difficulties excuse"
#22 Jul 16 2010 at 5:43 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
**
611 posts
They should do something similar to what they did with the PS2 release of FFXI on PS2 by including the additional hard-drive. I have no f-in clue how that would work with a RAM upgrade but I would pay a few extra bucks to have the game run the way its intended to on my console.

Edited, Jul 16th 2010 7:43pm 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
#23 Jul 16 2010 at 6:11 PM Rating: Excellent
*
205 posts
If you're treating the PS3 as a computer with the same allocations as a computer then it suffers. This is the reason why everyone was so reluctant to hop onboard the PS3 in the first place, because to program for the PC and XBox are virtually the same, but the PS3 is something of an abomination.

The PS3 has a different allocation of resources meaning that it may not have enough RAM to access large chunks of information, so it can crunch smaller bits of information quicker. It's spread more broad than that of a typical PC and it would require the programming patience and know-how to effectively make use of it.
____________________________
It's not who we are, but what we do that define us. - Batman Begins

#24Ethani209, Posted: Jul 16 2010 at 6:32 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) WOW...It sounds as if the PS3 can't even run the BETA!!!! Face it. SE is going to probably release an expansion on FFXIV in 2012 or 2013 at the latest. Can you imagine what Vid cards will be capable of then? Can anyone say DirectX12? The only hope it looks like for the PS3 version is possibly a release of a PS4 that would be able to handle the game. And honestly, I don't see SONY going ahead with that release being the PS3 is just starting to make money, and that has taken 3 1/2 years, almost 4 to break even. This is really starting to look like a computer only release, which all MMO's are heading towards anyway. I got started on FFXI on my XBOX 360, and it was better on it than my computer, a 2004 purchase. But in all honesty, I don't think even XBOX 360 can run this game and that was four years ago. Remember, they put a 2001 era pc game on a 360 in 2006, 5 years later, something a machine like 360 CAN run easily. Looks like it will be the next gen of consoles that will be able to handle FFXIV.
#25 Jul 16 2010 at 6:37 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
**
867 posts
chomama wrote:
They should do something similar to what they did with the PS2 release of FFXI on PS2 by including the additional hard-drive. I have no f-in clue how that would work with a RAM upgrade but I would pay a few extra bucks to have the game run the way its intended to on my console.


Too bad it wasn't something as simple as connecting a small unit into a usb port where the ps3 would recognize the new software updating itself, i'm sure it'll have to stay in that usb port to continue working. Personally idk if something like that would even be doable or not, but be nice. I'm waiting for PS3 release regardless what they do, but be nice if there will be no hold backs with "PS3 Limitations"...
____________________________
Asyrian - 90 Drg/Mnk
Reisaki - 90 Blu/Dnc/Pup/Rdm
Majoga - 90 Pld/Nin
Belisi - 90 Sch/Cor/Whm


#26 Jul 16 2010 at 7:47 PM Rating: Default
*
117 posts
Watch them cancel the ps3 version then i'd be ******* ****
#27 Jul 16 2010 at 9:24 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
I strongly doubt they'd cancel the PS3 version. Given that many of their XI players are on PS2/PS3, I can't see them canceling the console version entirely.

It just sounds like they're going to have to strip the pretties out of the PS3 version to get it on there.

Given that they've already said the PS3 version will be in 720p (when the PS3 is capable of 1080), this should be a good indicator that they're planning to scale back the graphics.

Edited, Jul 16th 2010 11:24pm 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.
#28 Jul 17 2010 at 12:27 AM Rating: Good
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
DuoMaxwellxx wrote:
I posted this before but not that theres official confirmation (and not just speculation) Im just doing it again and showing the link:

http://www.nowgamer.com/news/3713/square-enix-trouble-fitting-ffxiv-on-ps3


this sucks, ps3 version isnt even out yet and we're already starting the whole PS3 limitations phase



It's not the hard drive, it's fitting FFXIV's data into the PS3's RAM. What this really means is that the textures on the PS3 version will be lower resolution than on the PC version.

Edited, Jul 17th 2010 3:29am by Lobivopis
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#29 Jul 17 2010 at 1:08 AM Rating: Good
***
1,218 posts
FlogginaDeadHorse wrote:
This is why Sony should release updated PS3's.

***** making it slim or quieter (although I wouldn't say no to them doing that for no extra charge) but seriously as the years go by why doesn't Sony upgrade things like the RAM as current tech standrds move onwards and upward. Still call it the PS3 but just release with better/current standard specs. It's not like they are unaware of the rate at which the standards rise seemingly over night.



The reason is that for the most part, extra RAM would be useless because no one would want to develop titles that could only be played on the "upgraded" version of the console, so at best the upgraded system might offer a few easily implemented graphical or performance bonuses. It wouldn't be worth it to tool up production of such a specialized console.
#30 Jul 17 2010 at 3:12 AM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
Nintendo had the right idea with the Expansion Pack for N64. It's an easy to install, affordable upgrade to allow the system to play higher end games. You don't have to buy it if you don't want ti, but if you want to buy a game that needs it, it's easy to pop in, and not too terribly expensive.

Even the 360 has replaceable/expandable hard drives. Yeah, they're just a laptop hard drive in a shell, but you can go buy one and pop it in pretty easily.

I'm surprised that expandability/upgradeability isn't a staple in modern systems, especially given that we've at a barrier in technology where it's financially infeasible to produce a new generation of consoles that will show a noted performance in graphics until parts come WAY down in price.
____________________________
[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.
#31 Jul 17 2010 at 1:47 PM Rating: Good
*
215 posts
the RAM is not really a big deal...they'll have to lower the texture sizes , and thats really all. its not going to prevent expansions anymore than the ps2 did.
#32 Jul 17 2010 at 9:18 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
I'm surprised that expandability/upgradeability isn't a staple in modern systems, especially given that we've at a barrier in technology where it's financially infeasible to produce a new generation of consoles that will show a noted performance in graphics until parts come WAY down in price.

Considering that it's only ever an issue in situations exactly like this, where a game has to be available on PC and console, and not only that but the console and PC players have to use the same online servers.. I'm not surprised at all. This situation does not come up nearly often enough to make it worth doing. Hard drives can be upgraded because games aren't designed with the hard drive's capabilities in mind. The rest can't be upgraded for reasons already stated concisely in this thread - once a game is designed with a certain amount of specs in mind, there's no point in changing those specs.
#33 Jul 18 2010 at 11:45 PM Rating: Good
**
296 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
Nintendo had the right idea with the Expansion Pack for N64. It's an easy to install, affordable upgrade to allow the system to play higher end games. You don't have to buy it if you don't want ti, but if you want to buy a game that needs it, it's easy to pop in, and not too terribly expensive.

Even the 360 has replaceable/expandable hard drives. Yeah, they're just a laptop hard drive in a shell, but you can go buy one and pop it in pretty easily.

I'm surprised that expandability/upgradeability isn't a staple in modern systems, especially given that we've at a barrier in technology where it's financially infeasible to produce a new generation of consoles that will show a noted performance in graphics until parts come WAY down in price.


I don't have the Nintendo Expansion Pak's specs in front of me, but I imagine to have something similar for modern consoles you'd need to have a dedicated (and very high bandwith) connection already present in the system for today's RAM speeds to not bottleneck. I'd bet the 4MB Nintendo pak dealt with speeds slower than USB 2.0 ports provide today... and those aren't nearly fast enough to make expansion through them viable today. The problem becomes that you're essentially spending more on the manufacture of the console to implement an expansion possibility that might A: never happen or B: splinter your install base. The concept of console platforms is that my launch day system can run all the platform's titles for the entire generation.

The HDD in the PS3 is user replaceable as well, it simply resides in the system (there's a port on the bottom/side for access) instead of on top. And you can use any laptop HDD, instead of paying for the proprietary Microsoft drives.
#34 Jul 19 2010 at 11:23 AM Rating: Good
***
2,535 posts
ascorbic wrote:
I don't have the Nintendo Expansion Pak's specs in front of me, but I imagine to have something similar for modern consoles you'd need to have a dedicated (and very high bandwith) connection already present in the system for today's RAM speeds to not bottleneck. I'd bet the 4MB Nintendo pak dealt with speeds slower than USB 2.0 ports provide today... and those aren't nearly fast enough to make expansion through them viable today.


The Expansion Pak was plugged into a socket that is directly connected to the CPU data bus, and contained the same Rambus DRAM (with 560 MB/sec bandwidth) that the N64 used for main system RAM. And yes, that expansion socket was specifically designed for RAM expansion. (On stock N64's, that socket was filled by the Jumper Pak, which served as RDRAM terminator.)



It's interesting to note in the context of the thread, however, that only 2 games were ever made that were unplayable without the expansion pak (Majora's Mask and Donkey Kong 64), with another 2 games that only required the pak to unlock certain content (Starcraft 64 required the pak for the Brood War maps, and Perfect Dark required it for the single-player mode and some multi-player modes).
#35 Jul 19 2010 at 12:55 PM Rating: Good
**
296 posts
BastokFL wrote:
It's interesting to note in the context of the thread, however, that only 2 games were ever made that were unplayable without the expansion pak (Majora's Mask and Donkey Kong 64), with another 2 games that only required the pak to unlock certain content (Starcraft 64 required the pak for the Brood War maps, and Perfect Dark required it for the single-player mode and some multi-player modes).


Yeah, such is the fate of the add-on for consoles. We've seen all sorts of add-ons for consoles over the years... From new controllers and cameras, to new media interfaces (Sega-CD!!), and even the occasional expansion pack. Unfortunately, if you make a game requiring those to function, you're fighting to win over a much smaller install base than if you simply make a game that everyone with the console can use. Generally, you see a small lineup at launch and relatively few games afterward (and mostly from First Party dev teams) before the accessory is largely abandoned. It's hard enough getting sales when you've got tens of millions of potential customers for your game. Shrinking your potential customers down to a couple million, or several hundred thousand, rarely makes sense. Even then, the most successful games are usually bundled at a discount with the new hardware required to generate some perceived value.
#36 Jul 20 2010 at 6:18 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
ascorbic wrote:
BastokFL wrote:
It's interesting to note in the context of the thread, however, that only 2 games were ever made that were unplayable without the expansion pak (Majora's Mask and Donkey Kong 64), with another 2 games that only required the pak to unlock certain content (Starcraft 64 required the pak for the Brood War maps, and Perfect Dark required it for the single-player mode and some multi-player modes).


Yeah, such is the fate of the add-on for consoles. We've seen all sorts of add-ons for consoles over the years... From new controllers and cameras, to new media interfaces (Sega-CD!!), and even the occasional expansion pack. Unfortunately, if you make a game requiring those to function, you're fighting to win over a much smaller install base than if you simply make a game that everyone with the console can use. Generally, you see a small lineup at launch and relatively few games afterward (and mostly from First Party dev teams) before the accessory is largely abandoned. It's hard enough getting sales when you've got tens of millions of potential customers for your game. Shrinking your potential customers down to a couple million, or several hundred thousand, rarely makes sense. Even then, the most successful games are usually bundled at a discount with the new hardware required to generate some perceived value.


You forgot about ROB, the Power Glove, the track and field mat, and the Super Scope. And I know I'm forgetting plenty.
____________________________
[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.
#37 Jul 28 2010 at 1:20 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
312 posts
Jouhki wrote:
It probably (certainly) will fit on the PS3 40GB
BUT.. how many of you have a empty HDD in their PS3? ;)
If FFXIV takes up so much HDD space that it's almost the only thing you can have installed Sony will have some unhappy PS3 owners.


I swapped my HDD out with a WD 500GB drive... Even with 2 dozen+ games fully installed, I've never had to swap out game installs and I doubt I will ever again :)

As for the memory problems, yeah, I can see that. The whole "seamless transition without zones" thing would eat up a ton of memory. They'll just have to work out the buffer region around your character of which your system itself is keeping track. 6 months seems like a good enough time to figure that out, but I doubt this is the only problem that's going on.
____________________________
Steam: Xavier1216
FFXI: Astyanax (Bismarck)


#38 Jul 28 2010 at 10:36 PM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
ascorbic wrote:
Yeah, such is the fate of the add-on for consoles.


There is one exception, the PC-Engine CD-Rom attachment. (We know it as the Turbografix CD-Rom).

In Japan, the PC-Engine was a huge success. And the CD-Rom attachment eventually became the primary format for games on that system (eventually they just started building it into the machine because of this)
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#39 Jul 29 2010 at 7:55 AM Rating: Decent
11 posts
u can change ur ps3 HDD urself anytime. mine has 250gb in it :D
____________________________
We are still looking for Oceanic players (we are mainly from Singapore/Australia) to join our Company/Linkshell! Feel free to visit our website at http://ffxiv-invictuscodex.com
#40 Jul 29 2010 at 8:27 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
56 posts
Correct me if I'm wrong:

Didn't Vista allow for users to turn USB drives into additional RAM? Couldn't SE work with Sony to expand the PS3's OS so that gamers can by a little $15 1GB memory stick, stick it in one of the USB ports and call it a day?

I'm not sure how the PS3 is built from an engineering perspective so this could be COMPLETELY out of the question.
#41 Jul 29 2010 at 9:11 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
5,587 posts
ascorbic wrote:

Yeah, such is the fate of the add-on for consoles. We've seen all sorts of add-ons for consoles over the years... From new controllers and cameras, to new media interfaces (Sega-CD!!), and even the occasional expansion pack. Unfortunately, if you make a game requiring those to function, you're fighting to win over a much smaller install base than if you simply make a game that everyone with the console can use. Generally, you see a small lineup at launch and relatively few games afterward (and mostly from First Party dev teams) before the accessory is largely abandoned. It's hard enough getting sales when you've got tens of millions of potential customers for your game. Shrinking your potential customers down to a couple million, or several hundred thousand, rarely makes sense. Even then, the most successful games are usually bundled at a discount with the new hardware required to generate some perceived value.
I agree with this, unless of course you include the add-on hardware with the game itself. FFXI coming with the PS2 HDD anyone?
____________________________
Harri
80BLU/80BST/76RNG/75THF/75WHM/60SCH
100+3 Bonecraft
#42 Jul 29 2010 at 9:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
Nonagon wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong:

Didn't Vista allow for users to turn USB drives into additional RAM? Couldn't SE work with Sony to expand the PS3's OS so that gamers can by a little $15 1GB memory stick, stick it in one of the USB ports and call it a day?

I'm not sure how the PS3 is built from an engineering perspective so this could be COMPLETELY out of the question.


That was called Readyboost, and it's benefits were negligible at best. I'm not sure if SE could do that or not, but it wouldn't be nearly as efficient as onboard RAM, and I can't imagine it would be usable for gaming of any kind.
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#43 Jul 29 2010 at 9:36 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
743 posts
Wint wrote:
Nonagon wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong:

Didn't Vista allow for users to turn USB drives into additional RAM? Couldn't SE work with Sony to expand the PS3's OS so that gamers can by a little $15 1GB memory stick, stick it in one of the USB ports and call it a day?

I'm not sure how the PS3 is built from an engineering perspective so this could be COMPLETELY out of the question.


That was called Readyboost, and it's benefits were negligible at best. I'm not sure if SE could do that or not, but it wouldn't be nearly as efficient as onboard RAM, and I can't imagine it would be usable for gaming of any kind.


I'm sure it can be done, but I don't know if there would be any serious benefit from it. I know I could do it in Linux on my PS3 before that was "fixed".
____________________________
I think you've been smoking the Moko...
http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/character/350413/
http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/character/1628942/
http://www.nerdist.com/
Angus of Cerberus (retired)
#44 Jul 29 2010 at 3:39 PM Rating: Excellent
**
495 posts
Why are people saying "PS3 Limitations" already -.- they are approaching this game completely different then they did FFXI development. It just means whatever they designed for the PC version they have to find some way to nerf/consolidate into the PS3 RAM. The 512 they got availible on the PS3 should allow for ample room to turn off graphical features or lower resolution of the textures to make it work and it just means the PS3 release will be inferior graphically (Like that should bother too many people). The problem FFXI had was the entire games 'system' RAM was so unbelievebly small (even for that time period) that the entire games design was crunched down to the absolute minimum. Because of this in order for it to work on the PS2, the PC versions development had to be nerfed just so all game 'features' could run on both (In other words graphics weren't the problem, the game code itself was nerfed because of the PS2 RAM). Its amazing how many actual processes you can do with only 256 MB RAM especially if you got a good CPU and decently fast HDD (this does not include graphics) compared to the miniscule on board system RAM the PS2 had. I have no worries that the PS3 release will happen and that it won't hinder 'greatly' the PC development for a long time. Reason? The minimum specs for the PC are decided and very few if any companies go back on those specs regardless of console development, so the PS3 won't affect the games development anymore then the PC version itself will.

This news does make me wonder just how good the graphics will be for the PS3 release but im sure it will look fine, might be sub 720p but it will still have infinitely better resolution then FFXI had when it released. Also there will be a PS3 release, they are not going to lose 'that' portion of potential revenue especially after promising stuff like PS3 beta testing with the FFXIII code.
#45 Jul 29 2010 at 4:22 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
2,045 posts
They would never upgrade FFXI for pc because they said they wanted to keep all the platforms more or less identical, this made updates and expansions easier and cheaper to produce. It's still entirely possible they can the ps3 version, they will have to weigh the costs involved I guess. If they do release it then it goes against everything they did in the past with XI and they will have to do significant reworks to every update they add just for ps3.

If they are taking 6 months to fix it for ps3 then updates are all going to be delayed for it too, if they do go ahead with it. 6 months is pretty significant amount of time, they are doing more than just lowering the resoloution etc.
____________________________
BANNED
#46 Jul 29 2010 at 6:02 PM Rating: Good
**
495 posts
That's not what was said though. They said the issue with RAM is making it hard to release 'at the same time' as the PC release and thus the delay, its not like they are scrapping everything they worked on because the PS3 version is currently having problems. They have also said beta testing with the PS3 version would begin shortly (probably right before or right after the PC release). They are not going to rewrite the PC code after launch just to make it fit on the PS3. Reworking Textures to fit RAM better will take some time but they were already going to make more then 2 texture sets for PC and PS3 anyways (PC is 1080 and the PS3 being 720) so they are already doing something far different then FFXI in that regard.

A PS3 release is coming, it will not play any different then the PC release, it will just have inferior aesthetic features and nothing more, it will not hurt the PC release anymore then already made minimum requirements, content updates will not be slowed down as a consequence either (Xbox360 release didn't slow down FFXIII being released in the US and they just made the 360 release a slightly inferior product aesthetically to do it, so there IS precedant). You can bet on all of that happening.
#47 Jul 29 2010 at 6:03 PM Rating: Good
***
2,535 posts
Nonagon wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong:

Didn't Vista allow for users to turn USB drives into additional RAM? Couldn't SE work with Sony to expand the PS3's OS so that gamers can by a little $15 1GB memory stick, stick it in one of the USB ports and call it a day?

I'm not sure how the PS3 is built from an engineering perspective so this could be COMPLETELY out of the question.


It's doable, but the thing is that even USB 2.0 is several orders of magnitude slower than RAM, which doesn't really help performance - it's not really any faster than using the hard drive for virtual memory. And if the PS3 client software's memory usage exceeds the PS3's RAM, it's going to be constantly swapping data to virtual memory - whether it's to hard drive or to memory stick, it's still a huge performance hit.

USB 3.0 actually is significantly faster than 2.0 or hard drive (though still several orders of magnitude slower than RAM), but that's irrelevant, because the PS3 doesn't support USB 3.0.
#48 Jul 29 2010 at 9:51 PM Rating: Default
This really sucks.

First some info about the PS3:
Thanks a great part to the PS3 because it had helped win the next gen disk format wars between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.
Can't say the same for new XDR Ram format (used to be new i guess) which is much more superior to DDR2 but support for DDRs has gone much more higher than before.

The biggest thing that people will never understand is how the PS3 was designed and how it's technology exclusively works. Read up on XDR ram and how it works in the PS3.

The problem is that FFXIV was not exclusively developed for the PS3 so to rewrite the same game with different technology would take far too long.
Simply put: I dare you to imagine a PC trying to emulate PS3's MSG4.

This is why ports will always find ram limitation problems on the PS3.
Ok anough about that.

I really don't see a solution to issue.
Forget about usb Ram drives because they are too slow.

Solid state drives may help a little if SE installs an option for it.
Users would have to buy a SSD and then have an option to have FFXIV recalibrate itself to use the space to act as additional ram that could load up the background and land textures.
I not even sure if this is possible.

1 last and important note:
Being that 1 pre-ordered the PC and PS3 versions, im 90% sure that the PS3 version will look fantastic especially on my 42' HDTV. So im not really worried, its just a speed bump.




____________________________
One day maybe:
ShaolinGate.com
#49 Jul 29 2010 at 10:19 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
770 posts
In theory, if you have a large enough hard drive and free space on the ps3, they might be able write in part of the program about using some of the free space as virtual ram.



Edited, Jul 30th 2010 12:20am by Puppy1
____________________________
I do not suffer from insanity.. I rather enjoy it.

{retired} Devalynn Mithra WHM extrodinare -Garuda (gives everyone a high paw! yeah!)

Church OF Mikhalia
#50 Jul 30 2010 at 12:39 AM Rating: Good
***
2,535 posts
Puppy1 wrote:
In theory, if you have a large enough hard drive and free space on the ps3, they might be able write in part of the program about using some of the free space as virtual ram.


Virtual memory isn't really a solution for games.

Virtual memory works best when data gets swapped in and out fairly infrequently - but games generally keep data in RAM on an as-needed basis to begin with, i.e. the contents of a game's memory space is primarily data that it needs to process every frame. Swapping data in and out of virtual memory every frame causes an enormous performance and responsiveness hit.

Just as a grossly simplified example, let's say the PS3 client needs to have 600 MB of data loaded at any given time just to render the graphics and do simulation updates - since the PS3 only has 512 MB of RAM, it has to use 88 MB of virtual memory. This means that every frame, it needs to transfer at least 176 MB of data between hard drive and RAM every frame (writing 88 MB of data being swapped out, than reading another 88MB being swapped in), of which there are 60 each second. This requires the hard drive have a data bandwidth of at least 10 GB/sec.

Hard drives generally transfer about 70 MB/sec... which is about 1/150th of that. Even a USB 3.0 memory stick (out of the question anyway since the PS3 doesn't support USB 3.0) can only transfer 500 MB/sec, which is still too slow by a factor of 20. You can see the problem here.

In short, for games the general rule is, if a given bit of data has been loaded into RAM, in needs to be in physical RAM, not virtual memory.



This is further complicated by the fact that the PS3 client doesn't actually have 512 MB of RAM to work with - really, it has 238 MB of video RAM (256 MB capacity - the PS3 OS takes up 7 MB, and at least 11 MB are needed for the frame buffer) and 213 MB of system RAM (again, the OS itself takes up 43 MB of the 256 MB total).



The net result is that, compared to the PC version, the PS3 version is likely to have some combination of: lower resolution textures, less detailed models, shorter draw distance, and reduced characters shown on-screen.
#51 Jul 30 2010 at 1:03 AM Rating: Good
*
87 posts
I do wish it was to be released with the PC version. Till it's PS3 release I'm going to have to play the game through you all.

Be sure to keep posting and letting us know what's going on!
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 19 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (19)