Forum Settings
       
This thread is locked

FFXIV Will Live. Then it will be the biggest MMO Ever Made.Follow

#52 Mar 08 2011 at 9:17 AM Rating: Decent
**
589 posts
Sorry but I think its a done deal. When and if I ever buy a console game, even if im at the store, before I BUY it I will go find a review on my smartphone if need be and if that does not work I will pass it up unitll I get to a PC to read a review. Gone are the days where people buy something that has bad reviews. FFXIV is a niche game. Do you really think that the PS3 people do NOT know the state of the game? If it was a good game at launch then yeah all those folks without PCs who "wanted" to play would join in. That time was 6 months ago.
#53 Mar 08 2011 at 9:20 AM Rating: Excellent
**
557 posts
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the PS3 is the reason why FFXIV sucks.

One of the first things that really bothered me in the game was that during guildleves you're essentially fighting mobs in an instance. Why? I remembered logging into Aion the first time at the NA launch, seeing tons of new players, tons of wandering monsters, and everyone running around slaughtering them. Grand times indeed.

But not in FFXIV. What's also missing from FFXIV? Towns. NPCs wandering around, doing stuff. Houses, stuff.

Is it just a matter of memory? The PS3 has substantial memory limitations--maybe all of these rich, 3d things can't fit in PS3 memory when it's full of the land textures, player characters, and monsters? And that means no NPCs, not enough monsters, no towns, nothing to quest in, around, or for.
____________________________


#54 Mar 08 2011 at 9:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,045 posts
Quote:
FFXIV Will Live. Then it will be the biggest MMO Ever Made.


I can fly in my dreams, thx for sharing yours.

____________________________
BANNED
#55 Mar 08 2011 at 10:00 AM Rating: Excellent
26 posts
Quote:
To be fair... the PS3 has one advantage over the PC, despite having inferior hardware. The PS3 may only have 512MB of RAM... but the PS3 can use almost ALL of that memory due to having a small OS memory footprint. Whereas on a PC, you have bloated (by comparison) OS software that eats up a good chunk of the system's available memory.

The same thing can be said in regards to the processing power of the two. While the PS3 has an inferior processor compared to the I7, it's still able to utilize the processing threads and pipes in a much more controlled manner than a PC, which must often juggle many threads and pipes at once.

Ever wonder why the PS3 is capable of such great graphics despite it's limited hardware? It's due to the system's extreme resource management. Most PC software can't even hold a candle to the PS3 because PC resource management is... to put it bluntly.... sloppy in comparison. Making a game on a console means squeezing as much as you can out of the hardware. There is little room for error and console developers have no choice but to very conscientious when it comes to code execution. Whereas your typical PC game receives an optimization pass during the coding process... this optimization pass pales in comparison to a console's optimization pass... to the tune of about 35% efficiency as opposed to a console's 85% efficiency by the end of a console's life.


I'm very well aware of the PS3's ability to utilize memory in a way better than PC. However I replying to the OPs claim it can actually compete with an i7 GTX460. I happen to have an i7, gtx460 build with 16 gigs of ram, and a ps3, and I can tell you op, you are flippin' crazy if you think it can.
#56 Mar 08 2011 at 10:33 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,189 posts
Scalettaxiv wrote:
Quote:
To be fair... the PS3 has one advantage over the PC, despite having inferior hardware. The PS3 may only have 512MB of RAM... but the PS3 can use almost ALL of that memory due to having a small OS memory footprint. Whereas on a PC, you have bloated (by comparison) OS software that eats up a good chunk of the system's available memory.

The same thing can be said in regards to the processing power of the two. While the PS3 has an inferior processor compared to the I7, it's still able to utilize the processing threads and pipes in a much more controlled manner than a PC, which must often juggle many threads and pipes at once.

Ever wonder why the PS3 is capable of such great graphics despite it's limited hardware? It's due to the system's extreme resource management. Most PC software can't even hold a candle to the PS3 because PC resource management is... to put it bluntly.... sloppy in comparison. Making a game on a console means squeezing as much as you can out of the hardware. There is little room for error and console developers have no choice but to very conscientious when it comes to code execution. Whereas your typical PC game receives an optimization pass during the coding process... this optimization pass pales in comparison to a console's optimization pass... to the tune of about 35% efficiency as opposed to a console's 85% efficiency by the end of a console's life.


I'm very well aware of the PS3's ability to utilize memory in a way better than PC. However I replying to the OPs claim it can actually compete with an i7 GTX460. I happen to have an i7, gtx460 build with 16 gigs of ram, and a ps3, and I can tell you op, you are flippin' crazy if you think it can.


Oh yea, definitely. There's no way a PS3 can compete with any PC these days, as was discussed on the last page. Now that DX11 cards are mainstream and DX11 games are hitting the market, your going to see PC games push even further ahead than the PS3 can keep up with. I was merely pointing out that a system that has at most 1/2 the power of today's PC putting out games that look as good as they do is an achievement.

Considering it's assorted handicaps, it's quite impressive that the PS3 can do the things it can do. It may only be a shade of a thought when compared to even modest gaming rigs like my own (Phenom II x4 955, Radeon 5770, 4GB's of RAM), but the PS3 puts out visuals that would put a similarly equipped PC from 2006-2007 to shame... and even my modest gaming rig is humbled by what your packing.

I wasn't trying to imply that the PS3 can in any way, shape, or form compete with a fully decked out PC such as the one your using. Honestly... any computer that has been built within the last two years is more powerful than the PS3. It just took software developers two years to start putting that hardware to good use. DX11 was a punchline in 2009... now it's a farcry from a punchline thanks to DX11 native games like Metro 2033, and Aliens versus Predator (just to name a few of the big DX11 games of 2010). And with Bulletstorm displaying a blatent decrease in visual quality on consoles when compared side-by-side with the PC version, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the PC is ahead by leaps and bounds at this time (and I say at this time because whenever the PC gets ahead like it is now, that's usually when the console manufacturers start rolling out info on their new consoles).
#57 Mar 08 2011 at 10:56 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
The thing that people keep neglecting about the PC vs console debate is that consoles are created and have a given lifespan of a few years, during which you really can't replace any parts in them. Companies also have to be able to make these consoles for a reasonable price in order to make a profit. A new console may be top of the line as soon as it comes out, but in a few years, it's a few years old and it has virtually no replacable parts. N64 had an expansion pack, other systems have added disk drives, and newer systems are starting to add the ability to replace the hard drive, but until a console gets more replaceable parts, it's still stifled in its maximum potential. While a PC can keep getting a newer video card and more RAM and a new processor, a console is typically stuck with what it has when it came out of the box.

While it's true that consoles have the benefit of not having to deal with the OS footprint, computers have the option to make up for it by adding GRATUITOUS AMOUNTS OF ENERGY RAM to compensate.

The PS3 was better than most computers on the market at the time of its release, but a high end gaming rig will outperform a PS3. Quick example is in the fact that FFXIV for PC supports 1080P and SE is claiming that they can't get it on PS3 except as 720P.

Consoles are meant to be relatively affordable machines made for gaming, and gaming only. And they're great at that purpose when compared to a general purpose PC. But when you compare a console made for gaming that is four years old to a modern computer made for gaming which costs significantly more now than the PS3 cost at release... the PC wins.
____________________________
[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 Mar 08 2011 at 11:04 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,707 posts
You are right in that the community here tends to be self-centered. Not in a bad way, but just a naive way.

The vast majority of casual PS3 owners is either vaguely aware, or not aware at all, that there is such a thing as FFXIV right now. They get a couple of new gamer per year (mostly around christmas time) and thats about it.

If SE launches the PS3 version right before the holidays - and markets the game at least some - then it should fly off the shelves initially. From there, the game still has to be fun. I have a hunch that it will be just fine by November/December.

Anyone buying the game on PS3 is not as hardcore as people who built PCs to play. Thus they are likely not to play more than a couple of hours per day. since I am also fairly casual, I know from expereince that I did not even come close to keeping up with the content as it was released on FFXI. Graned, this assumes that you do enjoy casually grinding some crafts and things every now and then and don't simply power game your 2hrs of play time each day.

It's not like there's tons of competition for MMOs on the PS3.

And don't underesitmate the number of poeple who refuse to be a PC MMO gamer based on stigma alone. Many of those people feel like they get a "free pass" by sticking to casual PS3 gaming, and will not hesitate to try out FFXIV if they were a previous FF fan.

#59 Mar 08 2011 at 11:59 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
29 posts
[quote]beside, if you are a manager of ebgames store, would you hire someone with gaming knowledge or a 50 years old unemploy man/woman have absolute no idea or even touch a controller before?




Now wait just a minute there sonny. I'm 53 and just might have been gaming when you were in diapers. Not only do we have gaming knowledge, but also real life experience. In this economy, I could handle a second part time job at a gaming store and do it very well. Yes, people in their 50's still play and love video gaming.

Edited, Mar 8th 2011 1:08pm by Bainrow
____________________________


#60 Mar 08 2011 at 12:02 PM Rating: Default
oberonqa wrote:
BushwicktheBlack wrote:

Every PS3 owner in the world will know about FFXIV, and most will want to buy it based purely off of all their fond memories of the franchise, and the goosebumps they will get the first time they see that first EPIC FFXIV TV spot. I know my hair will stand on end, and I've already been playing the game for 6 months.


I hate to break it to you, but most people who have a PS3 either have a PC or know someone who does have a PC. There's a pretty good chance most of the PS3 owners in the world already know about FFXIV... and that's not a good thing.

Your deluding yourself if you think most PS3 owners aren't aware of FFXIV.



Hmm. Yea, well that only goes in favor of my argument. So what you are basically saying is that most of them already know about it, but were most likely unable to play because of lack of capable PC ownership. You don't think after a renwed marketing push some of those people may say to themselves "I'm going to see for myself, FINALly!"?

I think they will.
#61 Mar 08 2011 at 12:03 PM Rating: Default
Verecund wrote:
What still doesn't make since is why they would harm their PS3 release (as well as their reputation) with such a catastrophically failed PC release a full year in advance.


You missed that part about the "Gamma" test, huh?
#62 Mar 08 2011 at 12:07 PM Rating: Default
yfaithfully wrote:
50 million, wow, impressive number.

How many PS2 owners were there at FFXI release? The best-selling game console of all time?

And how many players did FFXI get? 500,000 at most? And that was when there was little to no decent MMO competition?

You're right, SE is hoping to make some money off a PS3 release just on the FF and PS brands alone. But that's a little money in SE's pocket, not a guarantee this game will ever get better.


When did I say "better"?

"Success" does not equate "Better", look at WoW for example. That game is absolute ******
#63 Mar 08 2011 at 12:18 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
46 posts
BushwicktheBlack wrote:
Verecund wrote:
What still doesn't make since is why they would harm their PS3 release (as well as their reputation) with such a catastrophically failed PC release a full year in advance.


You missed that part about the "Gamma" test, huh?


Nope. They still have several months yet to release the PS3 version.
#64 Mar 08 2011 at 12:18 PM Rating: Default
"The PS3 has 512mb of DDR2 shared ram and a 7800GS GPU. "

Thats real nice. I love all you people quoting me the hardware specs that you found on google, its real cute.

You do realize the pS3 and PC handle game processing completely differently, right? The Ps3 using graphics processing on the fly wit CELL, it doesn't use it's RAM and Graphics in the same way a computer does.

You really think you can Get a large scale 1st person online battle going on a 60" 240hz LED at 1080P with 512 RAM and a 7800GPU?

You ARE cute.

#65 Mar 08 2011 at 12:21 PM Rating: Default
Zorvan wrote:
BushwicktheBlack wrote:


WoW can be played on a very large percentage of PC's worldwide. FFXIV cannot. SE knew this upon release, yet they made no attempt to dumb down the graphical requirements. I wonder why.... What sort of other machine out there is not only the equal, but surpasses an i7/GTX 460 PC? I'll give you a hint: There is 50 Million of them out there and it's capable of 1.8 TFLOPS of Floating Point performance.




I hate to break it to you, but you're a raving lunatic if you think the PS3 can beat an I7 with a GTX 460.

The PS3 has 512mb of DDR2 shared ram and a 7800GS GPU.

The PS3 is a years old piece of outdated hardware now, bud. The PS3 version is the one being "dumbed down graphically. You see those "recommended" PC requirements for the resolution of 1280 x 1024? That's what PS3 users will be seeing. It's called 720p. You know, what people playing this game on low settings on the PC are seeing.

lol

BushwicktheBlack wrote:
"But don't kid yourself, the power processor and 7 synergistic processing elements of the ps3 along with the 550mhz RSX Synthesizer can hardly compete with an i7/GTX 460 build".

Can hardly compete with it? More like blows it out of the water.

Throw all the bench numbers around you want but I have a ridiculous amount of access to that exact build, so I prefer practical evidence as opposed to what google tells me, but here's what I did find:

i7 965- 51.2 GFLOPS @3.2GHZ
PS3 Cell- 218 GFLOPS @3.2GHZ

I've experimented with everything from the i5-750 up to the 975EE, 460's, 470's, 5850's, 70's etc. as well as every console. And when you are rocking a large scale battle at 240hz and 55" there isn't a PC under $2000 that will look as smooth as a PS3.

It doesn't matter which game it is, it ALWAYS plays better on PS3, FFXIV will be no different.

Having to code from the ground up for only one set of specs has it's advantages.





You can stop talking out your **** here, too. Plenty of games have slowdown and hitches on the PS3 when the screen gets overly cluttered/heavy action. Bayonetta and The Last Remnant are two notable examples. I own a PS3 and an Xbox 360, I can tell you from plain experience every game I've played on my PC and PS3 has looked better on the PC. Borderlands, Dragon age Origins, you name it.

Edited, Mar 7th 2011 10:49pm by Zorvan


And how much was your build? Mine was $249.00 and I'll put it up against yours any day.
#66 Mar 08 2011 at 12:24 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
437 posts
BushwicktheBlack wrote:


"Success" does not equate "Better", look at WoW for example. That game is absolute sh*te.


xD how I wish I could say what you say with such ease
____________________________

Metin - Phoenix - BLM75 WHM48 Retired

http://cojenova.enjin.com/ff14forum

#67 Mar 08 2011 at 12:26 PM Rating: Default
Verecund wrote:
A previously failed MMO (i.e. generating negative revenue) is about to inherit a more competitive western PS3 market.

The only hope this game even has is selling well on the J-side of the market. The PC-release has done so poorly that a PS3 release probably won't have much of a western audience to sell to. Consider this: They have to generate tens/hundreds of thousands of new sells for a title that has not only been severely criticized upon release, but also nearly half a year later. This is going to make for a marketing NIGHTMARE (unless of course, they have a whole lot of things they haven't told or shown us... but I remain in a state of doubt possibly bordering on outright contempt).

And that is the beginning of their problems. Not only are they going to have to compete against their previous (failure?), they will have to generally compete against such upcoming blockbuster titles as Resistance 3, Infamous 2, Uncharted 3 (notice these are also sequels), Mass Effect 3, Call of Duty: MW3, Dragon Age 2, Elder Scrolls V (if they plan on competing against that one, GOOD LUCK.. but they also said they would be competing against WoW back during the actual release, so...), etc etc....

Now, of course this is all speculation... but investment is also speculation. How well a product will do is speculation. Mind, I don't want this game to fail either - I don't want to have to buy another MMO, let alone void all the time I've already spent in this game... also, the graphics are very very pretty and shiny (which I speculate will bring in half of their western sales... and yes, I am covertly lobbying for better spell effects). But I'm not going to lie, SE has to play a pretty sh*tty hand of cards this round.



Every one of those games would take me less than 40 hours to beat. If they can move 600,000 units for a PC release, your telling me they cant at least match that for ps3 launch?

Wow. The negativity in here is astounding.
#68 Mar 08 2011 at 12:29 PM Rating: Default
Sethern79 wrote:
BushwicktheBlack wrote:


There are over 50 MILLION PS3 consoles sitting in homes all over the world. 50. Million.



WoW.. Really WoW. I have seen some fanboy BS in my day but this takes the cake. 50 Million? Really 50 Million? Do they sell the crack you are smoking in Ohio? I could use some of that. The Xbox 360 is still out selling the PS3 and it has only sold around 19-20 million. Last time I looked the 360 was a good 2-3 Million over the PS3 so they have at most 16 million and I really think the last I saw it was more like 12 million. And a good 75-80% of PS3 owners will not play FFXIV. Same was true for PS2 and FFXI.

Oh and my 3 year old PC kicks the crap out of the PS3. What people are going to get on the PS3 is at best 720p with the setings turned down. It will not look anything like what the PC can pull off. Fact is SE will need a lot more than the PS3 to save this game.


SOme people actually care about people that live in other countries. Yes, there are indeed 50 million ps3's WORLDWIDE.
#69 Mar 08 2011 at 12:32 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
***
1,609 posts
BushwicktheBlack wrote:
Sethern79 wrote:
BushwicktheBlack wrote:


There are over 50 MILLION PS3 consoles sitting in homes all over the world. 50. Million.



WoW.. Really WoW. I have seen some fanboy BS in my day but this takes the cake. 50 Million? Really 50 Million? Do they sell the crack you are smoking in Ohio? I could use some of that. The Xbox 360 is still out selling the PS3 and it has only sold around 19-20 million. Last time I looked the 360 was a good 2-3 Million over the PS3 so they have at most 16 million and I really think the last I saw it was more like 12 million. And a good 75-80% of PS3 owners will not play FFXIV. Same was true for PS2 and FFXI.

Oh and my 3 year old PC kicks the crap out of the PS3. What people are going to get on the PS3 is at best 720p with the setings turned down. It will not look anything like what the PC can pull off. Fact is SE will need a lot more than the PS3 to save this game.


SOme people actually care about people that live in other countries. Yes, there are indeed 50 million ps3's WORLDWIDE.


I will agree with that statement :) However, I doubt it's the same kind of care :P
____________________________


"I've never watched a nuclear explosion myself. That's a couple of degrees of stupid above my limit"- Old Man Harris
#70 Mar 08 2011 at 12:32 PM Rating: Decent
**
557 posts
If PS3 programs don't use RAM, I'd love to know what the **** they're using to store variables.
____________________________


#71 Mar 08 2011 at 12:32 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
46 posts
My argument wasn't about how many hours you play videogames.

My argument was about how many people will be physically buying games other than this one.
#72BushwicktheBlack, Posted: Mar 08 2011 at 12:34 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yea, there you go. Here's a cookie.
#73 Mar 08 2011 at 12:49 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,707 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
The thing that people keep neglecting about the PC vs console debate is that consoles are created and have a given lifespan of a few years, during which you really can't replace any parts in them. Companies also have to be able to make these consoles for a reasonable price in order to make a profit. A new console may be top of the line as soon as it comes out, but in a few years, it's a few years old and it has virtually no replacable parts. N64 had an expansion pack, other systems have added disk drives, and newer systems are starting to add the ability to replace the hard drive, but until a console gets more replaceable parts, it's still stifled in its maximum potential. While a PC can keep getting a newer video card and more RAM and a new processor, a console is typically stuck with what it has when it came out of the box.

While it's true that consoles have the benefit of not having to deal with the OS footprint, computers have the option to make up for it by adding GRATUITOUS AMOUNTS OF ENERGY RAM to compensate.

The PS3 was better than most computers on the market at the time of its release, but a high end gaming rig will outperform a PS3. Quick example is in the fact that FFXIV for PC supports 1080P and SE is claiming that they can't get it on PS3 except as 720P.

Consoles are meant to be relatively affordable machines made for gaming, and gaming only. And they're great at that purpose when compared to a general purpose PC. But when you compare a console made for gaming that is four years old to a modern computer made for gaming which costs significantly more now than the PS3 cost at release... the PC wins.


Yes, but games are designed specifically for the PS3's graphics rendering hardware. While a PC might be able to be upgraded with more powerful components, it is still going to be doing substantially more software rendering than the PS3. The PS3 is much much more efficient at producing nice looking graphics all things being equal. Basically you need a computer with more "powerful" components to equal the graphical performance of a PS3.

Granted, as the years tick by things begins leaning in favor of the PC more and more. But it doesn't matter once you are already running the game at highest settings. The long term comparison should be, how does the game look and play on PS3 versus a PC on highest settings.



#74 Mar 08 2011 at 12:50 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
BushwicktheBlack wrote:
yfaithfully wrote:
50 million, wow, impressive number.

How many PS2 owners were there at FFXI release? The best-selling game console of all time?

And how many players did FFXI get? 500,000 at most? And that was when there was little to no decent MMO competition?

You're right, SE is hoping to make some money off a PS3 release just on the FF and PS brands alone. But that's a little money in SE's pocket, not a guarantee this game will ever get better.


When did I say "better"?

"Success" does not equate "Better", look at WoW for example. That game is absolute sh*te.


You did say, and I quote the thread title, that it would be: "The biggest MMO ever made". So how are you defining "Biggest" here? Are you honestly saying that you expect SE to maintain over 10 million subscriptions to PS3 users worldwide when they have only sold less than half a million to PC players to date?

BushwicktheBlack wrote:
"The PS3 has 512mb of DDR2 shared ram and a 7800GS GPU. "

Thats real nice. I love all you people quoting me the hardware specs that you found on google, its real cute.

You do realize the pS3 and PC handle game processing completely differently, right? The Ps3 using graphics processing on the fly wit CELL, it doesn't use it's RAM and Graphics in the same way a computer does.

You really think you can Get a large scale 1st person online battle going on a 60" 240hz LED at 1080P with 512 RAM and a 7800GPU?

You ARE cute.


You -do- realize that SE has said that the PS3 version of FFXIV will only be 720p; that they cannot fit it into the memory limitations of the PS3 in its 1080p form, right? And that the PC version -does- have a 1080P form? So if the PC can support 1080P FFXIV and the PS3 can only support 720P FFXIV, how does that make the PS3 better at handling FFXIV than a high end PC?

I think OP is trolling us.
____________________________
[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.
#75 Mar 08 2011 at 1:00 PM Rating: Decent
**
557 posts
The PS3 was inferior to gaming rigs at release.

It was superior to mid-range computers, and for < $500 it was impressive.

That's really all it has going for it - price. But that's important - most gamers are young, and most gamers worldwide don't have $1500 USD to drop on a computer and monitor. These days, for less than the price of a gaming rig you can buy a PS3 and a 40" monitor and have gaming parties with all your friends. Consoles also get exclusive titles, and console makers can sell expensive peripherals. Consoles are easier to set-up, easier to use, somewhat less prone to hardware or software problems (for every red ring of death, how many computers get infected with viruses, start slowing down, have dead PSUs?).

That's it, though. They are NOT super computers. They're simple, efficient, cheap, single-purpose machines that are inferior to gaming PCs in terms of performance.
____________________________


#76 Mar 08 2011 at 1:22 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
yfaithfully wrote:
(for every red ring of death, how many computers get infected with viruses, start slowing down, have dead PSUs?)
Extremely few in comparison, assuming you aren't some mouthbreathing ******. Even then...

BushwicktheBlack wrote:
"The PS3 has 512mb of DDR2 shared ram and a 7800GS GPU. "

Thats real nice. I love all you people quoting me the hardware specs that you found on google, its real cute.

You do realize the pS3 and PC handle game processing completely differently, right? The Ps3 using graphics processing on the fly wit CELL, it doesn't use it's RAM and Graphics in the same way a computer does.

You really think you can Get a large scale 1st person online battle going on a 60" 240hz LED at 1080P with 512 RAM and a 7800GPU?

You ARE cute.
Lol. Of course consoles have been more efficient at processing data on very specific tasks, it's been that way for decades now. I find it funny that you think 1080p is actually running at a 1920x1080 resolution on the ps3 and isn't just upscaled from lower resolutions (360 is worse when it comes to this, to be fair). 240hz LED TV? You know most ps3 games run at 30 fps, right? I guarantee you that a PC will run a game better if you're going to be outputting to a 60" 240hz LED TV than a ps3.

That's not the point of the ps3 though, the point is to cheaply play games at decent quality. If you wanted better performance and picture quality, you'd have to get it from a PC, and it'll end up costing more. PCs also get used for a sh*tton more than consoles do, though.

Sure is fanboy in here.
____________________________
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.
#77BushwicktheBlack, Posted: Mar 08 2011 at 3:01 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I am aware of the fact most games come in 720p for the Ps3, including Final. You say this like it's news. And enough about these directX 11 games. Is FFXIV DX11? No? Ok then.
#78 Mar 08 2011 at 3:04 PM Rating: Good
**
473 posts
Zorvan wrote:
BushwicktheBlack wrote:


WoW can be played on a very large percentage of PC's worldwide. FFXIV cannot. SE knew this upon release, yet they made no attempt to dumb down the graphical requirements. I wonder why.... What sort of other machine out there is not only the equal, but surpasses an i7/GTX 460 PC? I'll give you a hint: There is 50 Million of them out there and it's capable of 1.8 TFLOPS of Floating Point performance.




I hate to break it to you, but you're a raving lunatic if you think the PS3 can beat an I7 with a GTX 460.

The PS3 has 512mb of DDR2 shared ram and a 7800GS GPU.

The PS3 is a years old piece of outdated hardware now, bud. The PS3 version is the one being "dumbed down graphically. You see those "recommended" PC requirements for the resolution of 1280 x 1024? That's what PS3 users will be seeing. It's called 720p. You know, what people playing this game on low settings on the PC are seeing.

lol

BushwicktheBlack wrote:
"But don't kid yourself, the power processor and 7 synergistic processing elements of the ps3 along with the 550mhz RSX Synthesizer can hardly compete with an i7/GTX 460 build".

Can hardly compete with it? More like blows it out of the water.

Throw all the bench numbers around you want but I have a ridiculous amount of access to that exact build, so I prefer practical evidence as opposed to what google tells me, but here's what I did find:

i7 965- 51.2 GFLOPS @3.2GHZ
PS3 Cell- 218 GFLOPS @3.2GHZ

I've experimented with everything from the i5-750 up to the 975EE, 460's, 470's, 5850's, 70's etc. as well as every console. And when you are rocking a large scale battle at 240hz and 55" there isn't a PC under $2000 that will look as smooth as a PS3.

It doesn't matter which game it is, it ALWAYS plays better on PS3, FFXIV will be no different.

Having to code from the ground up for only one set of specs has it's advantages.





You can stop talking out your **** here, too. Plenty of games have slowdown and hitches on the PS3 when the screen gets overly cluttered/heavy action. Bayonetta and The Last Remnant are two notable examples. I own a PS3 and an Xbox 360, I can tell you from plain experience every game I've played on my PC and PS3 has looked better on the PC. Borderlands, Dragon age Origins, you name it.

Edited, Mar 7th 2011 10:49pm by Zorvan



No Offence but use your head a little processing wise PS3 has the horse power . . .

Its the memory shortage acting as a bottleneck not compute . . .


PS3 has no OS, no secondary/territiary applications running in the background to slow it down. power processor still has the ability to out process a quad core i5 and some of the i7's.

Its the DDR2 and lack of physical memory giving se a problem forcing them to use smaller textures to fit all the data.
Research you can have this, tanaka himself stated this if you check on old forum posts and interviews. They continuously stated memory was the shortfall not processing speed
#79 Mar 08 2011 at 3:21 PM Rating: Decent
**
557 posts
While PCs do have a lot of OS and application overhead, and Windows isn't exactly designed for gaming (especially the Windows API, but DirectX is pretty great to program for), remember they do have dedicated GPUs that don't have any superfluous overhead. It wasn't until recent 3D engines that processor power really mattered - I used to play Left4Dead and Team Fortress 2 on a Pentium 4 - even Aion worked reasonably well on that box until I hit high population areas. Now they make extensive use of multiple threads to take advantage of multi-core CPUs, and you can see in a game like FFXIV that performance is largely dependent upon the number of cores in your box. That, AFAIK, is a pretty newish development in gaming - maybe because so many game studios had to learn to program for the PS3?

That's one thing that makes low-cost PS3 able to play good looking games - a multicore engine and games written for multicore engines. However, PCs rapidly achieved that number of cores and all of a sudden OS and application overhead means very little, since not only is Windows pretty good at handling swapping between processes, but now that's only going to happen on one core of 4, 6, or 8 virtual cores, leaving the others dedicated to gaming.

Don't get me wrong, the PS3 is an impressive piece of low cost, efficient hardware, but it ain't got nothing on an i7.

____________________________


#80 Mar 08 2011 at 3:58 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
BushwicktheBlack wrote:
I've installed FFXIV on about 20 different machines, laptops and desktops, ranging from about $800-$2400 in every brand/config you can think of. Can you guess how many times FFXIV worked?

Not. One. Single. Time.

I had to troubleshoot this game on every single machine, everytime I installed it. Do you think this is going to happen on PS3? I dunno, lemme try a game real quick. Oh look! It works. Once again, success does not really rely on resolution, nor has it ever. I think accessability is far more important.
Sounds like you have no idea what you're doing? Also, the ps3 version doesn't exist yet, so I'm amazed that you're able to get it running. In fact, SE themselves is having trouble developing the ps3 version because of the hardware limitations of the ps3 itself. Keep harping about how the ps3 is more powerful though, it's really convincing. Seriously.

BushwicktheBlack wrote:
And, yes, I actually think that it will be the biggest MMO ever, eventually surpassing WOW. Kind of why I said it in the first place, but thanks for checking anyways!
We get it, you're delusional. You don't need to keep explaining yourself.

Speeral wrote:
Its the DDR2 and lack of physical memory giving se a problem forcing them to use smaller textures to fit all the data. Research you can have this, tanaka himself stated this if you check on old forum posts and interviews. They continuously stated memory was the shortfall not processing speed
Since there's no way to fix this, it sounds like you'd admit then that the ps3 is limited in comparison to the PC. Thanks for playing.



Edited, Mar 8th 2011 4:02pm by bsphil
____________________________
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.
#81 Mar 08 2011 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
BushwicktheBlack wrote:
I am aware of the fact most games come in 720p for the Ps3, including Final. You say this like it's news. And enough about these directX 11 games. Is FFXIV DX11? No? Ok then.


I never said anything about DirectX 11. Irrelevant Straw Man is irrelevant.

BushwicktheBlack wrote:
We are talking about playability here, not just resolution. And it's not really fair to compare Home Entertainment resolution to PC. PC and PC monitors have always been ahead of televisions in that regard, There is some absolutely insane res' out there right now, but How many people have a screen that can do 5000 x 2000 or whatever? If it was all about resolution I would be playing FF at 1080 but it is choppy as **** so 720 is a much better gameplay experience. Just as I'm sure you can do more on your current PC gaming rig, but you don't because it will wreck the gameplay.

When it comes to smoothness, playability, and effects (AO, Depth and the like) the PS3 will play as good or better than any PC out there running the game in 720. As another poster said, this game was designed from the ground up for the PS3, not the PC. SE is not concerned with the unholy galactic sprawl that is the PC gaming Spec for game designers.

"Performance" doesn't just mean shadows, and lights, and resolution, though PC-only gamers always seem to think it does. And hands down, PS3 outperforms PC.

I'll take a great gameplay experience over retarded resolution anyday, and so does the majority of the rest of the world. Compare the amount of people who play Crysis on MAX SETTINGS DUDE to the amount of people who played the latest Mario Brothers as an example. In fact, just go look at Nintendo's numbers in general. You can keep your resolution guy.


So you claim that the PS3 is superior to a gaming PC... and then you now have a 4 paragraph long rant about how many settings they will have to nerf to make it perform well on the PS3? Do you listen to what you're saying at all?

Yes, turning down settings results in better performance. No, explaining how many settings will need to be turned down to make the game perform well on PS3 does not prove that PS3 performs better than a PC.

BushwicktheBlack wrote:
I've installed FFXIV on about 20 different machines, laptops and desktops, ranging from about $800-$2400 in every brand/config you can think of. Can you guess how many times FFXIV worked?

Not. One. Single. Time.

I had to troubleshoot this game on every single machine, everytime I installed it. Do you think this is going to happen on PS3? I dunno, lemme try a game real quick. Oh look! It works. Once again, success does not really rely on resolution, nor has it ever. I think accessability is far more important.


You're neglecting something important here: You think that the common thread in "I've installed FFXIV on about 20 different machines" is FFXIV. You're missing the obvious fact that the common thread is YOU. It's not the game not working, it's you who apparently can't figure out how to make it work. I also doubt 20 is an accurate number, unless you were literally trying to install it on every single computer you could, in which case that leads me back to my theory that there is something wrong with you. I've installed it three times on three machines and have a 100% success rate with it working. Am I saying it's perfect? No. But if you can't get a game working on a computer in twenty attempts, you need to consider that it might not actually be the game's fault.

You're one of those people who owns a Mac because "It just works!", aren't you?

BushwicktheBlack wrote:
And, yes, I actually think that it will be the biggest MMO ever, eventually surpassing WOW. Kind of why I said it in the first place, but thanks for checking anyways!


I'm 90% sure you're a troll, because no sane person is honestly going to suggest that a game that went from total box sales of under 500k to less than 100k users in under 6 months, with reviews that were so bad that the developers were explicitly told NOT TO READ THE REVIEWS OF THEIR OWN GAME, is going to somehow miraculously manage to end up garnering over 10 million users worldwide.

The other 10% is the possibility that you simply are insane.

There's absolutely no way you're going to convince ANYONE that 10 million PS3 users are going to jump onto FFXIV and love the everliving **** out of it, especially when you consider that FF13 sold roughly 6 million copies between 360 and PS3 combined. If we assume it's a 50/50 split, you honestly believe that SEVEN MILLION PEOPLE who didn't buy 13 are going to buy 14, never mind play it for more than the free trial month?
____________________________
[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.
#82BushwicktheBlack, Posted: Mar 08 2011 at 6:24 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) "[/i]
#83 Mar 08 2011 at 9:12 PM Rating: Good
**
317 posts
Why is everyone replying to this guy? He is obviously a troll (or off his rocker).

PS3 BS

PS3 CPU :
1. The PS3 only has 6 cores for the actual game.
2. Each SPE can do 1.8 GFlops which means 10.8 GFlops total + 6.4 GFLops for PPE = 16.4 GFlops total
3. 53.28 GFlops for the i7-965
4. i7 is better than PS3 for computations

Memory:
1. PS3 is only 256Mb of main memory and 256Mb of graphics memory
2. My computer has 8GB of ram in it right now and can go up to 16GB
3. The PS3 has to share memory with the running OS
4. My PC has no problem with having more than enough memory for both the OS and FFXIV ( And Chrome, and Winamp , and Eclipse , and ... )
5. PC is better than PS3

Communication:
1. PS3 has to handle communications between each SPE and the PPE. A lot of overhead
2. I have a Quad-Core which has less overhead for communication.
3. I wonder what should go here

Installation WTFery

20 Computers and none work the first time? So you spent how much money on all these? Also wtf is wrong with you if you could not get at least one of them to work the first time. I made my computer from scratch and it randomly crashes but yet FFXIV installed perfect the first time.

____________________________
Caaaaaaaaaaaaaaarl

Carl - "Shhhh, do you hear that? That is the sound of forgiveness."
"That is the sound of people drowning Carl."
Carl - "That is what forgiveness sounds like, screaming and then silence."
#84 Mar 08 2011 at 10:10 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
196 posts
I got a message for the OP..

Lol please.. FFXIV is still failing and will continue to fail till FFXV (or the next FF mmo) when SquareEnix gets their heads out of their ****.

Let's be serious, square enix has to be run by chimps to fail at a making an MMO 3 times in a row.

Trion had only one attempt, and slammed success in the face. Blizzard had one attempt and slammed success in the face. Turbine initially failed, but redeemed themselves soon after, with a mildly successful game.
This is square enix 2nd attempt and it looks like they will need like another 2 more years before this game gets out of Alpha..
____________________________
WoW: we want to give players a more fun time with less grinding and generic quests
GW2: we want the player to feel like they are leveling while doing something fun
Final Fantasy XIV: we want less fun and more grinding
#85 Mar 08 2011 at 11:32 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
551 posts
Speeral wrote:
Zorvan wrote:
BushwicktheBlack wrote:


WoW can be played on a very large percentage of PC's worldwide. FFXIV cannot. SE knew this upon release, yet they made no attempt to dumb down the graphical requirements. I wonder why.... What sort of other machine out there is not only the equal, but surpasses an i7/GTX 460 PC? I'll give you a hint: There is 50 Million of them out there and it's capable of 1.8 TFLOPS of Floating Point performance.




I hate to break it to you, but you're a raving lunatic if you think the PS3 can beat an I7 with a GTX 460.

The PS3 has 512mb of DDR2 shared ram and a 7800GS GPU.

The PS3 is a years old piece of outdated hardware now, bud. The PS3 version is the one being "dumbed down graphically. You see those "recommended" PC requirements for the resolution of 1280 x 1024? That's what PS3 users will be seeing. It's called 720p. You know, what people playing this game on low settings on the PC are seeing.

lol

BushwicktheBlack wrote:
"But don't kid yourself, the power processor and 7 synergistic processing elements of the ps3 along with the 550mhz RSX Synthesizer can hardly compete with an i7/GTX 460 build".

Can hardly compete with it? More like blows it out of the water.

Throw all the bench numbers around you want but I have a ridiculous amount of access to that exact build, so I prefer practical evidence as opposed to what google tells me, but here's what I did find:

i7 965- 51.2 GFLOPS @3.2GHZ
PS3 Cell- 218 GFLOPS @3.2GHZ

I've experimented with everything from the i5-750 up to the 975EE, 460's, 470's, 5850's, 70's etc. as well as every console. And when you are rocking a large scale battle at 240hz and 55" there isn't a PC under $2000 that will look as smooth as a PS3.

It doesn't matter which game it is, it ALWAYS plays better on PS3, FFXIV will be no different.

Having to code from the ground up for only one set of specs has it's advantages.





You can stop talking out your **** here, too. Plenty of games have slowdown and hitches on the PS3 when the screen gets overly cluttered/heavy action. Bayonetta and The Last Remnant are two notable examples. I own a PS3 and an Xbox 360, I can tell you from plain experience every game I've played on my PC and PS3 has looked better on the PC. Borderlands, Dragon age Origins, you name it.

Edited, Mar 7th 2011 10:49pm by Zorvan



No Offence but use your head a little processing wise PS3 has the horse power . . .

Its the memory shortage acting as a bottleneck not compute . . .


PS3 has no OS, no secondary/territiary applications running in the background to slow it down. power processor still has the ability to out process a quad core i5 and some of the i7's.

Its the DDR2 and lack of physical memory giving se a problem forcing them to use smaller textures to fit all the data.
Research you can have this, tanaka himself stated this if you check on old forum posts and interviews. They continuously stated memory was the shortfall not processing speed


No offence, but I already said that the PS3 has 512mb of DDR2 and the equivalent of a 7800gs GPU, and that these are both of it's main limitations. I said nothing about the processor.

But since you bring up the CELL processor, I think deathly809 two posts above explained how outdated it is as well.

And the PS3 does have an OS. It's that thing that boots up when you turn on the PS3 with all the menus and access to PSN and has to be updated 50 million times because Sony fears the pirates.

Edited, Mar 9th 2011 12:43am by Zorvan
____________________________



#86 Mar 09 2011 at 12:50 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
76 posts
FFXI topped 1 million subscribers with 2.5 million characters. Idk where 500k is coming from. They announced it when they hit 1 million.
____________________________


#87 Mar 09 2011 at 12:53 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
551 posts
AtryxEtair wrote:
FFXI topped 1 million subscribers with 2.5 million characters. Idk where 500k is coming from. They announced it when they hit 1 million.


And yet noone can find this announcement.
____________________________



#88 Mar 09 2011 at 12:58 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
76 posts
It was not long after ToAU release. I'll do some digging.
____________________________


#89 Mar 09 2011 at 1:31 AM Rating: Good
***
1,674 posts
Zorvan wrote:
AtryxEtair wrote:
FFXI topped 1 million subscribers with 2.5 million characters. Idk where 500k is coming from. They announced it when they hit 1 million.


And yet noone can find this announcement.


I can't exactly back up Atryx's claims of a million subscribers at any point in time, so I won't try. If it did happen, it could have only happened much, much earlier in its lifespan. ToAU/CoP age

However as I mentioned to you specifically in another thread I believe, FFXI did indeed have 500k subscribers at a rather recent time in its existence. Additionally, I also have an actual article from SE themselves stating active characters as recent as April 2009 was 2 million, not 2.5 million (sorry, Atryx; looks like you overestimated your numbers, unless again, this happened much earlier in its life cycle).

http://forums.ffxiclopedia.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16794

Apologies for citing a forum post, however I think the layout of the post quoting the SE press release should look official enough to not doubt its validity.

I admit, November 2008 may seem like a while ago now, but I feel it is safe to assume, due to a lack of potently powerful MMO releases over 2009 (excluding Aion, which I also played, and must also be stated spectacularly nosedived after a short bit of time, which you can judge merely from the rapid closing of servers by the early/middle of 2010), that it's 500k active player base stayed steady.

Unfortunately FFXI's 500k population began to rapidly decline as well once FFXIV began to be advertised and anticipated in the early to mid-year point of 2010. Sadly, as a result of how poorly FFXIV wound up doing, Square-Enix now not only sees no more than (potentially) 10-20% of people who bought or got a buddy bass for FFXIV playing regularly, but also saw FFXI's population never rebound as customers who moved from one to the other either got fed up, left for another MMO, or both.

Now it's entirely up to you whether 500k active subscribers is a "successful" number. As it is, if you look at the Wikipedia article, FFXI actually broke even when it attained around 200k subscribers way back in 2003.

So financially it was, and continued to be for several years. And considering comparable MMO numbers, 500k by most people would be considered a success, regardless of the behemoth numbers that World of Warcraft puts up compared not just to XI, but every other MMO.

Also, and I admit I may be reaching here, we can come to at least a few conclusions based off of SE's statement that there was 2,000,000 active characters in April 2009 (also cited in the Wikipedia article; keep in mind this article also meets Featured Article status on Wikipedia, for what it is worth, and the link cited for this information goes to PlayOnline itself).

Now, let's consider for a moment that **** near every person -- I think it's a safe assumption -- had a second, alternate character. Either for leveling, storage, other server, whatever. Maybe some even had three characters in all (I know I did for a small time). Four, though? That would seem excessive except for the more rabid players.

So going off that, I think it's safe to conclude that the game had anywhere between 500,000 to perhaps even 600,000 subscribers active back in April 2009, give or take a few ten thousand.

tl;dr - FFXI was more successful than I think you believe judging from your posts.

Edited, Mar 9th 2011 3:45am by Satisiun
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI Character(s)
Name: Satisiun
Server: Carbuncle (RIP Gilgamesh)
Jobs: 99DRG, 99PLD, 99RDM, 99WHM | Everything else: 50-60
~Retired.~

Final Fantasy XIV Character(s)
Name: Satisiun Desain
Server(s): Sargantas (primary)
DoW/DoM/DoH/DoL: 50
#90 Mar 09 2011 at 8:43 AM Rating: Excellent
**
317 posts
FFXI hit 500k subscribers back in 04 : link
FFXI hit 2 million in "population" in 09 : link

I believe the 2 million number is how many characters and not subscribers. The fact that I can't find anymore "subscriber milestones"
I think that they probably never went over 1 million subscribers but probably got close, maybe 800k.

Just found this 2.35 million characters : 2009 Census

Edited, Mar 9th 2011 9:52am by deathly809
____________________________
Caaaaaaaaaaaaaaarl

Carl - "Shhhh, do you hear that? That is the sound of forgiveness."
"That is the sound of people drowning Carl."
Carl - "That is what forgiveness sounds like, screaming and then silence."
#91 Mar 09 2011 at 10:28 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
Do I think FFXIV has a chance to recover? Yes. Do I expect it to recover? Eventually. Do I expect it to ever be as successful as FFXI? Maybe. Do I expect it to be more successful than WoW? Not by a long shot.

Now, I've said before that I think the admins do a great job of moderating around here, and I'm not necessarily calling for a lock because I don't really think this topic needs it, but I always find it interesting that the people who start the "FFXIV will fail and crash and burn and die" threads get locked for trolling pretty quickly, but a thread about how the PS3 is better than the PC -AND- how FFXIV is going to [allegedly] end up with more than 10 million subs is fine, despite the double dose of childish fanboyism.

I know a lot of people claim there's too much negativity around here, and I agree, but isn't an extremely overzealous fanboy post just as bad?

Hate to go back to these terms again, but I'm just wondering why just wondering why "Trolls" get the hammer brought on them because they're unwelcome, but "White Knights" don't.

I'm here because I'm hoping FFXIV will be a success, but let's be realistic about that success. The OP is like a Detroit Lions fan talking about how the Lions are going to have a 16-0 season, win the Super Bowl, and get their entire team elected to the Pro Bowl. It's one thing to have a positive, optimistic outlook. It's another to be outlandish.
____________________________
[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.
#92 Mar 09 2011 at 11:14 AM Rating: Default
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
Do I think FFXIV has a chance to recover? Yes. Do I expect it to recover? Eventually. Do I expect it to ever be as successful as FFXI? Maybe. Do I expect it to be more successful than WoW? Not by a long shot.

Now, I've said before that I think the admins do a great job of moderating around here, and I'm not necessarily calling for a lock because I don't really think this topic needs it, but I always find it interesting that the people who start the "FFXIV will fail and crash and burn and die" threads get locked for trolling pretty quickly, but a thread about how the PS3 is better than the PC -AND- how FFXIV is going to [allegedly] end up with more than 10 million subs is fine, despite the double dose of childish fanboyism.

I know a lot of people claim there's too much negativity around here, and I agree, but isn't an extremely overzealous fanboy post just as bad?

Hate to go back to these terms again, but I'm just wondering why just wondering why "Trolls" get the hammer brought on them because they're unwelcome, but "White Knights" don't.

I'm here because I'm hoping FFXIV will be a success, but let's be realistic about that success. The OP is like a Detroit Lions fan talking about how the Lions are going to have a 16-0 season, win the Super Bowl, and get their entire team elected to the Pro Bowl. It's one thing to have a positive, optimistic outlook. It's another to be outlandish.


The point of this thread was not meant to be a technical debate. I do however stand by my opinion that a PS3 out-performs a PC any day when it comes to gaming. The definition of "performance" is up for debate. For some people it's how many pretties are on the screen, for others it how well it works and how easy it is to use. "Look I can run this at 120fps with all the settings maxed and the LIGHTS and the LAVIN!" Try not to sound too much like Frink when you say that stuff.

And just for some clarification, I work in a computer store and have worked in PC and Mac sales for several years. My access to computers could definately be classified as "unfettered" to say the least. It's just me and about 50 units sitting there alone all day every day, so enough of you kids whining about "how could you possibly be so stupid as to go through so many PCs waka waka." That's right, my job is to play games all day and occasionally talk to a customer that walks in. And believe me when I say I have all my games installed on every PC that is capable of running them on that floor. I install FFXIV and Champions Online at least twice a week. Guess which one works right off the bat everytime?

SO, anyways, now you are whining to the moderators? "When people are negative you get rid of their threads. But when people are positive you don't. That's not fair. MORE NEGATIVITY. LESS POSITIVITY."

You really find that interesting? If you can't understand why people encourage being nice, and discourage people from being mean, then I really don't know what to tell you.

Time for a little self-reflection, perhaps?
#93 Mar 09 2011 at 11:40 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
BushwicktheBlack wrote:
The point of this thread was not meant to be a technical debate. I do however stand by my opinion that a PS3 out-performs a PC any day when it comes to gaming. The definition of "performance" is up for debate. For some people it's how many pretties are on the screen, for others it how well it works and how easy it is to use. "Look I can run this at 120fps with all the settings maxed and the LIGHTS and the LAVIN!" Try not to sound too much like Frink when you say that stuff.


So now "The PS3 has better performance than the PC" comes down to "The definition of "performance" is up for debate"? You've gone from claiming that a console outperforms a PC with nothing but blind fanboy assertions to now trying to redefine the word? Don't backpedal so fast, you'll hurt yourself.

BushwicktheBlack wrote:
And just for some clarification, I work in a computer store and have worked in PC and Mac sales for several years. My access to computers could definately be classified as "unfettered" to say the least. It's just me and about 50 units sitting there alone all day every day, so enough of you kids whining about "how could you possibly be so stupid as to go through so many PCs waka waka." That's right, my job is to play games all day and occasionally talk to a customer that walks in. And believe me when I say I have all my games installed on every PC that is capable of running them on that floor. I install FFXIV and Champions Online at least twice a week. Guess which one works right off the bat everytime?


As a Network Admin, I gotta say that if you "work in a computer store" and you have been unsuccessful in getting a COTS game to work on 20 different systems without needing to fix it manually every time, your upward mobility in the IT field is limited. Consider fast food, or perhaps janitorial work instead.

Of course then there's the catch that you said you have worked in "sales" for years. I guess you are just proving the old saying that a good enough salesman doesn't need to know how his product works to sell it.

BushwicktheBlack wrote:
SO, anyways, now you are whining to the moderators? "When people are negative you get rid of their threads. But when people are positive you don't. That's not fair. MORE NEGATIVITY. LESS POSITIVITY."


No, I specifically said I'm not asking for a lock or anything, I'm certainly not whining to any moderators. For someone who accuses others of not reading before they type, you seem to have a bit of a problem in that department yourself. I specifically said to leave the thread unlocked IMO because I'm enjoying this little back and forth with you. Whereas you fail to install FFXIV correctly on every computer you put your hands on at work, I argue with people on forums at work. At no point did I explicitly call to delete or lock the thread (again, L2R).

BushwicktheBlack wrote:
You really find that interesting? If you can't understand why people encourage being nice, and discourage people from being mean, then I really don't know what to tell you.

Time for a little self-reflection, perhaps?


I tried (apparently unsuccessfully) to point out to you that there is a difference between being realistically positive and being so over-enthusiastically positive that you have crossed so far beyond the line between reality and fantasy that the line is now a dot to you. If you can't see that, and it seems you can't, then I'm not sure what more I can do to explain the concept.

I have no issues understanding why people generally encourage being nice over being mean. I do, however, have an issue understanding why you have lost touch with reality. I support your right to have a positive outlook, I have one too. I join you in hoping the game will be a success. I'm sure that the people on the Titanic hoped they would survive as the ship was going down, and I'm sure some of them kept a positive outlook. But I doubt any of them actually expected the thing to rise out of the water, sprout wings, and spirit them all away to a land of candy and rainbows.

There's "a positive outlook" and then there's just absurdity. You would qualify for the latter category.
____________________________
[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.
#94 Mar 09 2011 at 1:16 PM Rating: Excellent
**
317 posts
BushwicktheBlack wrote:


The point of this thread was not meant to be a technical debate. I do however stand by my opinion that a PS3 out-performs a PC any day when it comes to gaming. The definition of "performance" is up for debate. For some people it's how many pretties are on the screen, for others it how well it works and how easy it is to use. "Look I can run this at 120fps with all the settings maxed and the LIGHTS and the LAVIN!" Try not to sound too much like Frink when you say that stuff.

And just for some clarification, I work in a computer store and have worked in PC and Mac sales for several years. My access to computers could definately be classified as "unfettered" to say the least. It's just me and about 50 units sitting there alone all day every day, so enough of you kids whining about "how could you possibly be so stupid as to go through so many PCs waka waka." That's right, my job is to play games all day and occasionally talk to a customer that walks in. And believe me when I say I have all my games installed on every PC that is capable of running them on that floor. I install FFXIV and Champions Online at least twice a week. Guess which one works right off the bat everytime?

SO, anyways, now you are whining to the moderators? "When people are negative you get rid of their threads. But when people are positive you don't. That's not fair. MORE NEGATIVITY. LESS POSITIVITY."

You really find that interesting? If you can't understand why people encourage being nice, and discourage people from being mean, then I really don't know what to tell you.

Time for a little self-reflection, perhaps?


The performance of the PS3 versus the modern gaming PC is not up for debate, the modern gaming PC wins hands down. The PS3 cannot outperform the modern gaming PC no matter what you like to think because that is not an opinion but a fact. You can have all the opinions you want but no matter what you think my Quad-Core 2.6 GHz processor with 8 GB of system ram, RAID, and a graphics card with 1GB dedicated video memory is going to out perform the PS3 in every way. The graphics are better, the animation will be smoother, and the response time will be faster.

I worked in a computer repair shop and it was my job to build, fix, upgrade computers. I installed FFXIV once on my computer and guess what, it never had a problem, not one. The only thing in common with you and your 20 computers and it not working is you. Also I would like to know who are the kids whining? How old are they? Or better yet how old are you? You make these claims with NO PROOF and everything you say is your opinion.

Everything you are talking about is absolutely ridiculous and far fetched. You have this amazing notion that everyone is going to go out and get FFXIV for the PS3 because they want to play an MMO on the PS3 but you have absolutely no proof or even some logic to convince anyone that is going to listen to you.

____________________________
Caaaaaaaaaaaaaaarl

Carl - "Shhhh, do you hear that? That is the sound of forgiveness."
"That is the sound of people drowning Carl."
Carl - "That is what forgiveness sounds like, screaming and then silence."
#95 Mar 09 2011 at 1:24 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
BushwicktheBlack wrote:
SO, anyways, now you are whining to the moderators? "When people are negative you get rid of their threads. But when people are positive you don't. That's not fair. MORE NEGATIVITY. LESS POSITIVITY."
Way to miss the boat yet again. Even following that exact logic you set up, it doesn't imply that fairness would mean swapping the balance of negativity and positivity. Either neither types of posts should be allowed or both should be allowed. But then again, I'm not sure it's worth debating logical inconsistencies with someone who thinks FFXIV will definitively outsell WoW once the ps3 version is released. You've yet to provide any evidence that it would occur, and you haven't done that because that evidence doesn't exist.
____________________________
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.
#96 Mar 09 2011 at 1:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
2,426 posts
BushwicktheBlack wrote:

Can I ask you something? If it's so outrageous, so insane, so Troll-like for me to even say such a thing, A) Why are you even playing the game still? and b) what are you doing on a message board about a game you are so sure is doomed?

*COUGHcuzyourmeanCOUGH*


*you're



personally, i'm not playing the game. i'm on the message boards because the message boards are more fun than playing the game. i'm serious.


and

Quote:

Edited, Mar 8th 2011 7:27pm by BushwicktheBlack

Edited, Mar 8th 2011 7:29pm by BushwicktheBlack

Edited, Mar 8th 2011 7:31pm by BushwicktheBlack

Edited, Mar 8th 2011 7:37pm by BushwicktheBlack

Edited, Mar 8th 2011 7:40pm by BushwicktheBlack



keep obsessively editing your posts, its totally making them better.
____________________________
monk
dragoon

#97 Mar 09 2011 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Llester wrote:
I'm on the message boards because the message boards are more fun than playing the game. i'm serious.
Unfortunately, this is very true.
____________________________
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.
#98 Mar 09 2011 at 1:38 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,202 posts
Hahahaha FFXIV OUTSELLING WOW ? JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!

Thats right up there with the miracle patch that will transform this game into something resembling an actual MMO!

SE Will never have a MMO like WOW, because they do not understand how the MMO market works it's a simple as that :)
____________________________
MUTED
#99 Mar 09 2011 at 1:57 PM Rating: Excellent
**
317 posts
Llester wrote:
BushwicktheBlack wrote:

Can I ask you something? If it's so outrageous, so insane, so Troll-like for me to even say such a thing, A) Why are you even playing the game still? and b) what are you doing on a message board about a game you are so sure is doomed?

*COUGHcuzyourmeanCOUGH*


*you're



personally, i'm not playing the game. i'm on the message boards because the message boards are more fun than playing the game. i'm serious.


and

Quote:

Edited, Mar 8th 2011 7:27pm by BushwicktheBlack

Edited, Mar 8th 2011 7:29pm by BushwicktheBlack

Edited, Mar 8th 2011 7:31pm by BushwicktheBlack

Edited, Mar 8th 2011 7:37pm by BushwicktheBlack

Edited, Mar 8th 2011 7:40pm by BushwicktheBlack



keep obsessively editing your posts, its totally making them better.


His edits do make me worry a little because I have no trust in him. He could edit it to remove things he said that are wrong so that it makes him look better. Say for instance you call him out on something then he goes back and removes it and then says "What are you talking about, I never said that, you are just making stuff up and therefore we can't trust you." I wish there was a way to see previous posts before edits.
____________________________
Caaaaaaaaaaaaaaarl

Carl - "Shhhh, do you hear that? That is the sound of forgiveness."
"That is the sound of people drowning Carl."
Carl - "That is what forgiveness sounds like, screaming and then silence."
#100 Mar 09 2011 at 1:58 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Ostia wrote:
Hahahaha FFXIV OUTSELLING WOW ? JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!

Thats right up there with the miracle patch that will transform this game into something resembling an actual MMO!

SE Will never have a MMO like WOW, because they do not understand how the MMO market works it's a simple as that :)
Frankly, I'm completely content with FF MMOs filling a more niche MMO market. I loved FFXI because it wasn't like EQ/WoW/Aion/AoC/etc. If FFXI tried to replicate the traditional genre style I don't think I would've enjoyed it nearly as much. It may have cost it the market penetration that Aion or WoW has, but I've also played those MMOs and never stuck with them because they were boring.

Edited, Mar 9th 2011 1:59pm by bsphil
____________________________
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.
#101 Mar 09 2011 at 1:59 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
deathly809 wrote:
Llester wrote:
BushwicktheBlack wrote:

Can I ask you something? If it's so outrageous, so insane, so Troll-like for me to even say such a thing, A) Why are you even playing the game still? and b) what are you doing on a message board about a game you are so sure is doomed?

*COUGHcuzyourmeanCOUGH*


*you're



personally, i'm not playing the game. i'm on the message boards because the message boards are more fun than playing the game. i'm serious.


and

Quote:

Edited, Mar 8th 2011 7:27pm by BushwicktheBlack

Edited, Mar 8th 2011 7:29pm by BushwicktheBlack

Edited, Mar 8th 2011 7:31pm by BushwicktheBlack

Edited, Mar 8th 2011 7:37pm by BushwicktheBlack

Edited, Mar 8th 2011 7:40pm by BushwicktheBlack



keep obsessively editing your posts, its totally making them better.


His edits do make me worry a little because I have no trust in him. He could edit it to remove things he said that are wrong so that it makes him look better. Say for instance you call him out on something then he goes back and removes it and then says "What are you talking about, I never said that, you are just making stuff up and therefore we can't trust you." I wish there was a way to see previous posts before edits.


If he edited out the things he said that are wrong, half this thread would be dead space.
____________________________
[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.
This thread is locked
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 20 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (20)