Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
This Forum is Read Only

PS3 limitations.. the old excuse is already startingFollow

#1 Jun 17 2011 at 11:09 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
**
560 posts
Posted by Bayohne on the official forums reguarding DirectX 10/11

"This was posted in response to asking about support for DirectX 10 and DirectX 11, specifically. When taking into consideration the performance of the PlayStation 3 version, we currently have no plans of supporting DirectX 10/11. However, in the event that large changes or alterations take place to the graphics, or if DirectX 10/DirectX 11 continue to grow in popularity, we will begin to support them."


Makes me sad in da pants to already see the "PS3 limitations" excuse getting play from SE.
____________________________


#2 Jun 17 2011 at 11:37 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,801 posts
It was going to happen one way or another eventually. You can upgrade your computer. You can't upgrade your PS3. Since SE has to keep it playable on your PS3, that will eventually limit what they can do.
____________________________
WoW -- Zaia -- Dragonmaw -- Mage 80 BABY! Alchemy 450
Also... Hunter 62, Rogue 52, Warrior 66, Warlock 43, Death Knight 70, Shaman Who Cares? ;)

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

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

#3 Jun 17 2011 at 11:47 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
**
560 posts
Caia wrote:
It was going to happen one way or another eventually. You can upgrade your computer. You can't upgrade your PS3. Since SE has to keep it playable on your PS3, that will eventually limit what they can do.


Its sad its happening before PS3 is even released. I dont know **** about tech stuff but from what people are saying ffxiv using DX9 or DX10 or DX11 shouldnt really be effected by the PS3 limitations anyways. If thats true and its just being used as the copy/paste excuse already its really sad.
____________________________


#4 Jun 17 2011 at 11:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Already starting? Try 11 months ago.
____________________________
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.
#5 Jun 18 2011 at 12:33 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,801 posts
tpgsoldier wrote:
Caia wrote:
It was going to happen one way or another eventually. You can upgrade your computer. You can't upgrade your PS3. Since SE has to keep it playable on your PS3, that will eventually limit what they can do.


Its sad its happening before PS3 is even released. I dont know **** about tech stuff but from what people are saying ffxiv using DX9 or DX10 or DX11 shouldnt really be effected by the PS3 limitations anyways. If thats true and its just being used as the copy/paste excuse already its really sad.


Heh, this IS SE we're talking about. The same company that claimed PS2 limitations prevented them from giving us more Mog Storage room, more inventory room, and more slots on the AH. I could do all those things 15 years ago using QBasic with ease.

This leads to one of two conclusions. Either SE hired goldfish to program their software OR SE has no trouble lieing to us. Given SE's past record... Well, I could go on for pages about it. I'll let the reader choose what they want to think is true. :)
____________________________
WoW -- Zaia -- Dragonmaw -- Mage 80 BABY! Alchemy 450
Also... Hunter 62, Rogue 52, Warrior 66, Warlock 43, Death Knight 70, Shaman Who Cares? ;)

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

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

#6 Jun 18 2011 at 12:34 AM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Caia wrote:
tpgsoldier wrote:
Caia wrote:
It was going to happen one way or another eventually. You can upgrade your computer. You can't upgrade your PS3. Since SE has to keep it playable on your PS3, that will eventually limit what they can do.


Its sad its happening before PS3 is even released. I dont know **** about tech stuff but from what people are saying ffxiv using DX9 or DX10 or DX11 shouldnt really be effected by the PS3 limitations anyways. If thats true and its just being used as the copy/paste excuse already its really sad.


Heh, this IS SE we're talking about. The same company that claimed PS2 limitations prevented them from giving us more Mog Storage room, more inventory room, and more slots on the AH. I could do all those things 15 years ago using QBasic with ease.

This leads to one of two conclusions. Either SE hired goldfish to program their software OR SE has no trouble lieing to us. Given SE's past record... Well, I could go on for pages about it. I'll let the reader choose what they want to think is true. :)
Both?
____________________________
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.
#7 Jun 18 2011 at 12:39 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
**
560 posts
Caia wrote:
tpgsoldier wrote:
Caia wrote:
It was going to happen one way or another eventually. You can upgrade your computer. You can't upgrade your PS3. Since SE has to keep it playable on your PS3, that will eventually limit what they can do.


Its sad its happening before PS3 is even released. I dont know **** about tech stuff but from what people are saying ffxiv using DX9 or DX10 or DX11 shouldnt really be effected by the PS3 limitations anyways. If thats true and its just being used as the copy/paste excuse already its really sad.


Heh, this IS SE we're talking about. The same company that claimed PS2 limitations prevented them from giving us more Mog Storage room, more inventory room, and more slots on the AH. I could do all those things 15 years ago using QBasic with ease.

This leads to one of two conclusions. Either SE hired goldfish to program their software OR SE has no trouble lieing to us. Given SE's past record... Well, I could go on for pages about it. I'll let the reader choose what they want to think is true. :)


Yeah its pretty sad when its such a common thing that we just kinda roll our eyes and laugh about it.
____________________________


#8 Jun 18 2011 at 1:02 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
626 posts
bsphil wrote:
Already starting? Try 11 months ago.

yeah PS3 limitations were a big topic even during beta because of memory issues.
its the same old story, consoles are not upgradable but PCs are made to be upgraded specifically equally because of peoples use of PC for gaming and because PC technology outdates itself on a monthly basis.

it really is sad, why is it soooooooo freaking necessary to make an MMO for both PC and console? it just doesnt work guys!
FUGGEN EY MAN!!!
____________________________

#9 Jun 18 2011 at 1:10 AM Rating: Decent
**
952 posts
Caia wrote:
tpgsoldier wrote:
Caia wrote:
It was going to happen one way or another eventually. You can upgrade your computer. You can't upgrade your PS3. Since SE has to keep it playable on your PS3, that will eventually limit what they can do.


Its sad its happening before PS3 is even released. I dont know **** about tech stuff but from what people are saying ffxiv using DX9 or DX10 or DX11 shouldnt really be effected by the PS3 limitations anyways. If thats true and its just being used as the copy/paste excuse already its really sad.


Heh, this IS SE we're talking about. The same company that claimed PS2 limitations prevented them from giving us more Mog Storage room, more inventory room, and more slots on the AH. I could do all those things 15 years ago using QBasic with ease.

This leads to one of two conclusions. Either SE hired goldfish to program their software OR SE has no trouble lieing to us. Given SE's past record... Well, I could go on for pages about it. I'll let the reader choose what they want to think is true. :)


I never understood the mindset behind this. To me it would make more sense to just come out and say, "hey, we can't do this right now for whatever reason, we might get it out eventually" instead of just plain lying. I mean sure, there would be some tards out there that would criticize Square no matter what but I for one would be more forgiving if they were honest and showed some interest in pleasing the player base.

That is why I'm still sticking around here hoping this game will get better. Because to me they are being more honest now than they were with XI. Plus it looks like they are trying to make the game better, though at a very slow pace. I just hope they keep it up.

Edited, Jun 18th 2011 3:12am by CupDeNoodles
#10 Jun 18 2011 at 1:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
2,801 posts
Then general rule in business is this: Blame someone else if at all possible and hope no one checks. I work in a customer service job. If we stop carrying a product, we're told to tell the customer that the supplier had "some issues" regardless of why we stopped carrying it. 98 times out of 100, the customer says, "Oh, well, that's too bad. Do you have some alternative to the product I was looking for."

Companies lie because consumers are dumb as bricks.
____________________________
WoW -- Zaia -- Dragonmaw -- Mage 80 BABY! Alchemy 450
Also... Hunter 62, Rogue 52, Warrior 66, Warlock 43, Death Knight 70, Shaman Who Cares? ;)

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

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

#11 Jun 18 2011 at 1:34 AM Rating: Good
***
3,177 posts
CupDeNoodles wrote:
Caia wrote:
tpgsoldier wrote:
Caia wrote:
It was going to happen one way or another eventually. You can upgrade your computer. You can't upgrade your PS3. Since SE has to keep it playable on your PS3, that will eventually limit what they can do.


Its sad its happening before PS3 is even released. I dont know **** about tech stuff but from what people are saying ffxiv using DX9 or DX10 or DX11 shouldnt really be effected by the PS3 limitations anyways. If thats true and its just being used as the copy/paste excuse already its really sad.


Heh, this IS SE we're talking about. The same company that claimed PS2 limitations prevented them from giving us more Mog Storage room, more inventory room, and more slots on the AH. I could do all those things 15 years ago using QBasic with ease.

This leads to one of two conclusions. Either SE hired goldfish to program their software OR SE has no trouble lieing to us. Given SE's past record... Well, I could go on for pages about it. I'll let the reader choose what they want to think is true. :)


I never understood the mindset behind this. To me it would make more sense to just come out and say, "hey, we can't do this right now for whatever reason, we might get it out eventually" instead of just plain lying. I mean sure, there would be some tards out there that would criticize Square no matter what but I for one would be more forgiving if they were honest and showed some interest in pleasing the player base.

That is why I'm still sticking around here hoping this game will get better. Because to me they are being more honest now than they were with XI. Plus it looks like they are trying to make the game better, though at a very slow pace. I just hope they keep it up.

Edited, Jun 18th 2011 3:12am by CupDeNoodles


I'm not sure what/why you guys are saying S-E is lying. They were actually hindered by PS2 limitations. That's why the limit of storage was 80 in FFXI. They couldn't make it any bigger than 80, but they could make more parallel inventory boxes that have 80 spaces. That's why we had Mog Locker, Mog Satchel, etc instead of simply expanding the Inventory past 80 spaces.
____________________________
Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Grover Eyeveen - Hyperion Server
Viva Eorzea Free Company/Linkshell Leader - Hyperion Server

Aegis Server (2012-2013)
Figaro Server (2010-2012)

Final Fantasy XI:
Retired

Blog
#12 Jun 18 2011 at 1:43 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
2,801 posts
Quote:
I'm not sure what/why you guys are saying S-E is lying. They were actually hindered by PS2 limitations. That's why the limit of storage was 80 in FFXI. They couldn't make it any bigger than 80, but they could make more parallel inventory boxes that have 80 spaces. That's why we had Mog Locker, Mog Satchel, etc instead of simply expanding the Inventory past 80 spaces.


They said that when we had 50 spaces too. Then when they somehow over came that (how exactly was never explained), we had 60. But that was the limit of the PS2. Suddenly, they over came that and we had 70! But that was it, no way could the limitations of the PS2 allow for more. And now we have 80.

So either the programmers were complete and utter idiots, or we were flat out being lied to.

By the way, what exactly is the limitation that prevents inventories from going over 80? Plenty of RAM, plenty of disk space, plenty of, well, anything you would need to expand it from 80 to hundreds if not hundreds of thousands of slots. If you like, I'll whip something up on QBasic that will allow you to keep track of a million things. So long as you have the RAM, it'll work.

You want more proof that SE lies to our faces? When FFXI got DDoS'ed for weeks on end a few years back, SE repeatedly said that they were not having any issues on their end. It must on something on the users end. They didn't just say this for a day or two, this went on for over two weeks. Then, all the sudden, they admit that all the issues were being caused by DDoS attacks (something that we had figured out long before they confirmed it).

Edited, Jun 18th 2011 3:48am by Caia
____________________________
WoW -- Zaia -- Dragonmaw -- Mage 80 BABY! Alchemy 450
Also... Hunter 62, Rogue 52, Warrior 66, Warlock 43, Death Knight 70, Shaman Who Cares? ;)

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

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

#13 Jun 18 2011 at 3:06 AM Rating: Good
*
101 posts
This has nothing to do with PS3 limitations. They could easily make the PC version DX11 and it would not be a problem for the PS3.

EDIT: Remember when they promised us FFXI would be updated to DX9? And all they did was to put in a dll that gave them the one coding line they needed to make their horrible version of windower.

Edited, Jun 18th 2011 5:08am by Kayako
____________________________
booh
#14 Jun 18 2011 at 3:46 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
626 posts
Kayako wrote:
This has nothing to do with PS3 limitations. They could easily make the PC version DX11 and it would not be a problem for the PS3.

EDIT: Remember when they promised us FFXI would be updated to DX9? And all they did was to put in a dll that gave them the one coding line they needed to make their horrible version of windower.

Edited, Jun 18th 2011 5:08am by Kayako

ok yeah, i dont know crap about that stuff but from what i do know what you said does make sense. why would they have to be tied in that aspect? they already said that they plan on releasing the ps3 version with a set graphics lesser than what the game could possibly run, why not add dx11?
____________________________

#15 Jun 18 2011 at 3:58 AM Rating: Good
14 posts
Just out of curiosity, is there anyone in here who is underwhelmed or disappointed with the way the game looks right now for PC? I would understand if the lack of DX10/11 support actually made it impossible to play for people with newer cards, but ... it doesn't. So, between spending time redoing all of the game mechanics that have been getting discussed over the past few months and ******** with the game's graphics engine to make it DX10/11 compatible, would you really rather have them spend time on the second one?
____________________________


#16 Jun 18 2011 at 5:32 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
351 posts
Caia wrote:
Heh, this IS SE we're talking about. The same company that claimed PS2 limitations prevented them from giving us more Mog Storage room, more inventory room, and more slots on the AH. I could do all those things 15 years ago using QBasic with ease.


And when the stack overflow happens, what then?

If the problem was as simple as extending an array from 80 slots to whatever, that would have been done in 5 seconds. The issue is that every available resource on the PS2 is tightly allocated. They literally have only allocated enough space for 80 slots of storage for whichever "bank" you're looking at (Mog House, Storage, etc.) while the whole rest of the game is running at the same time. There's no room to maneuver in memory for even a few more slots. That's why they've been adding new "banks" (like the Satchel and the Sack) with 80 spaces each to get around the problem.

Edited, Jun 18th 2011 7:58am by ForceOfMeh
#17 Jun 18 2011 at 6:13 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,801 posts
Quote:
If the problem was as simple as extending an array from 80 slots to whatever, that would have been done in 5 seconds. The issue is that every available resource on the PS2 is tightly allocated. They literally have only allocated enough space for 80 slots of storage for whichever "bank" you're looking at (Mog House, Storage, etc.) while the whole rest of the game is running at the same time. There's no room to maneuver in memory for even a few more slots. That's why they've been adding new "banks" (like the Satchel and the Sack) with 80 spaces each to get around the problem.


Ok, I'm gonna assume that's completely true for a moment.

1.) Why claim that 50 slots is the max when in fact its 80? Did they not read the manual? And they claimed the max amount of slots was 60, and then 70. The artitecture for the PS2 hasn't changed since those claims, correct? If it hasn't (and to my knowledge it hasn't -- in fact -- can't) we're still at the same conclusions as earlier: Either the programmers at SE are really bad or SE lied to us.

2.) If they can add more banks (which the can and have), why couldn't they just add a second bank for your mog house? Click on one button, it opens up the first section. Click on a second button and it open up the second section. Granted, this isn't directly expanding the bank, but it gives the same effect. Seems to me it was perfectly possible to give people a larger mog house inventory even if they had to "cheat" a bit to do it.

Lastly, while I don't know all that much about the way PS2s are set up, I'm quite shocked to learn that a bank would only be able to hold 80 things in it. In theory it ought to be a power of two minus one (though, there's no real reason it HAS to be). And in this day and age, 80 seems like an incredibly small number, even if the memory is as tightly allocated as you say (which I don't doubt). But like I said, I don't know much about the PS2s configurations. I'll grant that it is entirely possible.

I stand by my claim that SE outright lied to us when they claimed they couldn't make mog house inventory any bigger.

Edit: Clarification.
Edit 2: And just to be clear, I'm not saying that the PS2 or PS3 are limitless. I just very strongly suspect some of the claims that SE has made about such limitations are false.
Edit3: W00t! 2700 posts! Yay me.

Edited, Jun 18th 2011 8:22am by Caia
____________________________
WoW -- Zaia -- Dragonmaw -- Mage 80 BABY! Alchemy 450
Also... Hunter 62, Rogue 52, Warrior 66, Warlock 43, Death Knight 70, Shaman Who Cares? ;)

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

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

#18 Jun 18 2011 at 9:13 AM Rating: Good
***
3,177 posts
Caia wrote:
Quote:
I'm not sure what/why you guys are saying S-E is lying. They were actually hindered by PS2 limitations. That's why the limit of storage was 80 in FFXI. They couldn't make it any bigger than 80, but they could make more parallel inventory boxes that have 80 spaces. That's why we had Mog Locker, Mog Satchel, etc instead of simply expanding the Inventory past 80 spaces.


They said that when we had 50 spaces too. Then when they somehow over came that (how exactly was never explained), we had 60. But that was the limit of the PS2. Suddenly, they over came that and we had 70! But that was it, no way could the limitations of the PS2 allow for more. And now we have 80.

So either the programmers were complete and utter idiots, or we were flat out being lied to.

By the way, what exactly is the limitation that prevents inventories from going over 80? Plenty of RAM, plenty of disk space, plenty of, well, anything you would need to expand it from 80 to hundreds if not hundreds of thousands of slots. If you like, I'll whip something up on QBasic that will allow you to keep track of a million things. So long as you have the RAM, it'll work.

You want more proof that SE lies to our faces? When FFXI got DDoS'ed for weeks on end a few years back, SE repeatedly said that they were not having any issues on their end. It must on something on the users end. They didn't just say this for a day or two, this went on for over two weeks. Then, all the sudden, they admit that all the issues were being caused by DDoS attacks (something that we had figured out long before they confirmed it).

Edited, Jun 18th 2011 3:48am by Caia


If FFXI was coded in QBasic, then you may have a point. I don't know why it's hard-coded at 80 max (as I didn't program the game), but that's the cap for whatever reason.

They probably wouldn't have done all this work making parallel inventories of up to 80 spaces if they could just increase the main inventory further.

Can you link me to where they said they were hindered by PS2 limitations and that's why they can't go any further than 50 spaces?

As for the DDoS attacks, I remember them warning us to take measures, but they never blamed us for the attacks. And I remember some confusion among the tech support and S-E themselves due to lack of communication (which is why some customer service representatives falsely assumed that it was the user's fault), but again I attribute that to lack of information provided rather than them flat out saying they were lying.


_


Edit:


Quote:

So either the programmers were complete and utter idiots, or we were flat out being lied to.


Now this statement just comes off as arrogant. For all we know, the inventory could have been covered in some sort of abstract stack data structure with a fixed size of 80, and the programmers don't want to run the risk of possibly changing that and have the elements in the stack get lost and ***** up the whole thing. So it's not the case of them being idiots, it's better to just copy/paste the code required for stack and apply it to Mog Satchel, Safe, Locker, Bag, etc for the same effect. Clever workaround if you ask me.

Edited, Jun 18th 2011 8:28am by UltKnightGrover
____________________________
Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Grover Eyeveen - Hyperion Server
Viva Eorzea Free Company/Linkshell Leader - Hyperion Server

Aegis Server (2012-2013)
Figaro Server (2010-2012)

Final Fantasy XI:
Retired

Blog
#19 Jun 18 2011 at 9:24 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
351 posts
Caia wrote:
1.) Why claim that 50 slots is the max when in fact its 80? Did they not read the manual? And they claimed the max amount of slots was 60, and then 70. The artitecture for the PS2 hasn't changed since those claims, correct? If it hasn't (and to my knowledge it hasn't -- in fact -- can't) we're still at the same conclusions as earlier: Either the programmers at SE are really bad or SE lied to us.


Initially they found places in FFXI's code where they could free up more memory to add more slots, but eventually they had to settle on 80.
#20 Jun 18 2011 at 10:12 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
UltKnightGrover wrote:
Clever workaround if you ask me.
That's one way to look at it. I'd say that in typical SE fashion they apply band-aids rather than real fixes. For example, market wards.
____________________________
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.
#21 Jun 18 2011 at 11:47 AM Rating: Decent
*
94 posts
Oh, best believe there are Ps3 limitations. The fact that SE would enter a AAA title into such an aggressive market while effectively handcuffing their developers from the get go is a pretty mind boggling approach. I just cease to believe that they would make this mistake twice. Really there is only 2 explanations for it:

1.) Sony has SE by the short and curlies for every numbered FF title by some kind of awful contract term that SE mustve signed on for many years ago when they parted ways with Nintendo. (My guess would be that SE is like a money hungry franchise athlete. Locked in a long term contract with a lose-lose team? Just show up and fall into routine until the term is up. Contract nearing the end? Pull magic out of your **** every second of everyday.) My theory is when SE gets out of whatever lock down contract they have going with Sony, then we will see the games we want to see.

2.) SE could possibly have a different vision for the direction of the company. Even a direction that is steering them outside of gaming entirely. Movies? Their past few efforts reak of a big detached boss scrolling down a simplistic checklist and signing off on projects. Is it pretty? check. Does the script read really well? check. Does it create a buzz in the community? check. Was it relatively cheap to produce in comparison to potential profits? check. All decisions made without actually playing the game mind you. Or for that matter, someone that actually knows what to look for if they did in fact play these games because I cannot be convinced that the producers and directors could in any way possible be proud of the products they have been putting out. Especially XIV. Someone, somehow, somewhere in the staff knew this game was a mistake. Lets not be foolish.

But yea, they are trying to be a jack of all trades by developing for both ps3 and PC. And master of none. Such an absolutely bizarre business model for a top feeding company in the market. somethins up.... idk what but there's an underlying issue going on that we dont know about, and we are being completely screwed as customers because of it. Terrible, terrible business practices.


#22 Jun 18 2011 at 11:54 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,100 posts
First, IMHO...from a consumer and gamer perspective, I don't think the game would really look "that" much better that adding DX10/11 support would be something that would A) Be worth Square-Enix's development time and B) Be worth it to the end-user. The game looks pretty **** good on a PC running it at 1920x1080 on max settings. ****, it looks good on less than max settings. Seems like a semantics issue to me. DX11 is better than DX10 is better than DX9...etc. ho hum.

Second...ya'll can argue the PS3 Limitation subject all you want, but last time I checked, FFXI was a PS2 limited game and it's still going, content updates and all, 9 years later. In today's world of MMO's, FFXI is a dinosaur...yet people still log on every day, enough so that SE is still developing content for it. That's ... really nothing to be ashamed of.
____________________________
Common sense is not so common -Voltaire
Wyne Aeros - Hyperion Server
ARRFishing.com

#23 Jun 18 2011 at 11:56 AM Rating: Excellent
*
200 posts
im personally fine with DirectX 9 its faster than 11 on all but the latest tech, its also the most versatile DirectX API. you can do everything in DirectX 9 you can in DirectX 11 through software calls. the reason they refuse to route calls to another api is simple, its all hard coded to DirectX 9. you can route the calls though 11 or 10.1, but nothing would change. you would gain no benefits in doing so a limitation of the crystal tool set.
#24 Jun 18 2011 at 4:57 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,177 posts
KingRaul wrote:
Oh, best believe there are Ps3 limitations. The fact that SE would enter a AAA title into such an aggressive market while effectively handcuffing their developers from the get go is a pretty mind boggling approach. I just cease to believe that they would make this mistake twice. Really there is only 2 explanations for it:

1.) Sony has SE by the short and curlies for every numbered FF title by some kind of awful contract term that SE mustve signed on for many years ago when they parted ways with Nintendo. (My guess would be that SE is like a money hungry franchise athlete. Locked in a long term contract with a lose-lose team? Just show up and fall into routine until the term is up. Contract nearing the end? Pull magic out of your **** every second of everyday.) My theory is when SE gets out of whatever lock down contract they have going with Sony, then we will see the games we want to see.

2.) SE could possibly have a different vision for the direction of the company. Even a direction that is steering them outside of gaming entirely. Movies? Their past few efforts reak of a big detached boss scrolling down a simplistic checklist and signing off on projects. Is it pretty? check. Does the script read really well? check. Does it create a buzz in the community? check. Was it relatively cheap to produce in comparison to potential profits? check. All decisions made without actually playing the game mind you. Or for that matter, someone that actually knows what to look for if they did in fact play these games because I cannot be convinced that the producers and directors could in any way possible be proud of the products they have been putting out. Especially XIV. Someone, somehow, somewhere in the staff knew this game was a mistake. Lets not be foolish.

But yea, they are trying to be a jack of all trades by developing for both ps3 and PC. And master of none. Such an absolutely bizarre business model for a top feeding company in the market. somethins up.... idk what but there's an underlying issue going on that we dont know about, and we are being completely screwed as customers because of it. Terrible, terrible business practices.



Sony has little to do with it. It all stems from post-Sakaguchi's departure and right at the start of the Square-Enix era when they split Square-Enix into different production teams. They took the game-play design directors (Hiroyuki Ito, Yasumi Matsuno, Hiromichi Tanaka) and split them from the story directors (Yoshinori Kitase, Tetsuya Nomura, etc) and have them competing against each other rather than with each other. That's why you have FFX and FFXIII (done by the same team) which place a greater emphasis on story rather than gameplay and FFXI, XII, and XIV which is the opposite.

They need to go back to the pre-FFVIII days. (Which is where they started splitting up the teams, but not officially) and create some quality titles with the teams working together to create the high quality games we used to put on high standard than stuff that's overly linear and feels like a movie with no gameplay (FFXIII) or unfinished and laggy and all gameplay with little lore whatsoever (FFXIV).

Sorry for the rant, if you want to see how the teams are exactly split up you can go here.




Edited, Jun 18th 2011 4:00pm by UltKnightGrover
____________________________
Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Grover Eyeveen - Hyperion Server
Viva Eorzea Free Company/Linkshell Leader - Hyperion Server

Aegis Server (2012-2013)
Figaro Server (2010-2012)

Final Fantasy XI:
Retired

Blog
#25 Jun 19 2011 at 1:36 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
569 posts
Why SE why make a MMO that's console and PC compatible why. When you could have made it PS3 exclusive and move on with your life... why! *snif*

On a different note it will be x-360 limitation way before ps3 limitations, just a fyi.
____________________________
99th paper cut, and the grain of salt.
#26 Jun 19 2011 at 2:11 PM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
TwiddleDee wrote:
Why SE why make a MMO that's console and PC compatible why. When you could have made it PS3 exclusive and move on with your life... why! *snif*

On a different note it will be x-360 limitation way before ps3 limitations, just a fyi.


Well, it's not coming to the xbox so I guess we don't have to worry about it. In fact, I'm still not convinced it's actually going to come to the Ps3 at all.

SE is just a masochistic company. Instead of conceding defeat on the console front with regards to mmos, they are stubbornly insisting that they will be able to make this work. Console games aren't really even their main competition - and the longer they continue to cripple themselves the less of a chance they have to get that slice of pie the shareholders are hoping for.

A lot of folks think that SE runs their place like a business and that's why they make the decisions they do. I disagree. If they ran more like a real business, they wouldn't be holding on for dear life to things like the market wards and this dream of cross-platform RPGing. They would have cut their losses and given the players what they demanded.

Nah - SE is idealistic and cater to the niche. It's just sad that even their niche is starting to slowly slip away.
#27 Jun 19 2011 at 2:23 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,636 posts
Torrence wrote:


Nah - SE is idealistic and cater to the niche. It's just sad that even their niche is starting to slowly slip away.


Its not that they cater to the niche, they are still actively attempting to be a huge and successful business, but they fail to realize that only the niche seem to like them. If they designed for their fan base rather than trying to please everyone, I'm sure they'd do slightly better.
____________________________


#28 Jun 19 2011 at 2:32 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
351 posts
Torrence wrote:
Well, it's not coming to the xbox so I guess we don't have to worry about it. In fact, I'm still not convinced it's actually going to come to the Ps3 at all.


They've doubled down. It's definitely going to the PS3 for the dramatic re-release (and the only chance left for the win) as long as Yoshida has the backing to continue. If it doesn't, it's because they've decided to stop the bleeding and end FFXIV entirely. I'm convinced the Japanese market favors the PS3 over the PC, so that's all the incentive they need.
#29 Jun 19 2011 at 2:42 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
569 posts
Torrence wrote:

A lot of folks think that SE runs their place like a business and that's why they make the decisions they do. I disagree. If they ran more like a real business, they wouldn't be holding on for dear life to things like the market wards and this dream of cross-platform RPGing. They would have cut their losses and given the players what they demanded.


For the love of god, i hope SE never fully gives the players what they demand. Not that such a thing is possible, how would they make a MMO that caters to every one, when every one has a different opinion. Example, i like the market wards more than ah. And cross-platform RPGing allows people who have a platform to play without spending additional money on a better PC.
____________________________
99th paper cut, and the grain of salt.
#30 Jun 19 2011 at 2:53 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,149 posts
TwiddleDee wrote:
Why SE why make a MMO that's console and PC compatible why. When you could have made it PS3 exclusive and move on with your life... why! *snif*


It probably has something to do with FF games being available on consoles since they were released. Another thing to remember is that FF MMO gamers, at least in the US and EU regions, preferred the PC version of the game over the console version. I was excited for this game, but if it was only released for PS3 and not PC I wouldn't have given it any consideration.

You second point doesn't make any sense. SE had no issues porting from PC/PS2 to xbox with XI, yet you see that the PS3 version is postponed indefinitely. I agree that it makes sense to wait and release PS3 version with all the updates(including an expansion), but it's still an excuse for them to figure out how they're going to make it work.
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#31 Jun 19 2011 at 5:04 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,235 posts
UltKnightGrover wrote:
Caia wrote:
[quote]I'm not sure what/why you guys are saying S-E is lying. They were actually hindered by PS2 limitations. That's why the limit of storage was 80 in FFXI. They couldn't make it any bigger than 80, but they could make more parallel inventory boxes that have 80 spaces. That's why we had Mog Locker, Mog Satchel, etc instead of simply expanding the Inventory past 80 spaces.


They said that when we had 50 spaces too. Then when they somehow over came that (how exactly was never explained), we had 60. But that was the limit of the PS2. Suddenly, they over came that and we had 70! But that was it, no way could the limitations of the PS2 allow for more. And now we have 80.

So either the programmers were complete and utter idiots, or we were flat out being lied to.

By the way, what exactly is the limitation that prevents inventories from going over 80? Plenty of RAM, plenty of disk space, plenty of, well, anything you would need to expand it from 80 to hundreds if not hundreds of thousands of slots. If you like, I'll whip something up on QBasic that will allow you to keep track of a million things. So long as you have the RAM, it'll work.

You want more proof that SE lies to our faces? When FFXI got DDoS'ed for weeks on end a few years back, SE repeatedly said that they were not having any issues on their end. It must on something on the users end. They didn't just say this for a day or two, this went on for over two weeks. Then, all the sudden, they admit that all the issues were being caused by DDoS attacks (something that we had figured out long before they confirmed it).

Edited, Jun 18th 2011 3:48am by Caia


If FFXI was coded in QBasic, then you may have a point. I don't know why it's hard-coded at 80 max (as I didn't program the game), but that's the cap for whatever reason.

They probably wouldn't have done all this work making parallel inventories of up to 80 spaces if they could just increase the main inventory further.

Can you link me to where they said they were hindered by PS2 limitations and that's why they can't go any further than 50 spaces?

As for the DDoS attacks, I remember them warning us to take measures, but they never blamed us for the attacks. And I remember some confusion among the tech support and S-E themselves due to lack of communication (which is why some customer service representatives falsely assumed that it was the user's fault), but again I attribute that to lack of information provided rather than them flat out saying they were lying.

Actually they did tell everyone the problem was not on their end for 2 weeks straight. The stock answer we got when calling in or live chatting (there were no means of communication other than through CS) was that everything was normal on their end, and we should contact our ISPs - for 2 solid weeks. Then they threw a message up on PoL stating they had come under a DDoS attack from the China region, but had exacted measures to thwart the attack.
So yes, they either didn't know for 2 straight weeks they were under a DDoS attack that stopped EVVERYONE from accessing the server, or they lied to us for 2 weeks.
Which do you think it was?
____________________________


"Don't take it personally man, white knights would eat a can of **** if the label said SE on it. If anyone dared mention that it was not a good product, they'd just argue if someone can't appreciate the subtle nuances in the ****, they should just go back to eating lolrealfood, cuz the devs prolly know more about canning food than they do."
#32 Jun 19 2011 at 8:03 PM Rating: Default
Sage
Avatar
*
111 posts
Just to chip in a bit here, but SE's not the only one doing this these days. The case with FFXI and the PS2 was only with Square, but now everyone's doing with without people knowing.

Console games just sell more than PC. A lot of games are released on all consoles but not on PC until some time later. Even games are starting to be developed for console power before PC comes into consideration.

Elder's Scroll V: Skyrim is allegedly made with PS3 and Xbox 360's system in mind, THEN ported to PC, rather than the other way around. All because games sell more on consoles and they want it to work efficiently on 6 year-old consoles rather than new mid-high range PCs.

Until a new gen of console comes out, console games, and effectively, their counterpart PC games are going to be limited graphically.
#33 Jun 19 2011 at 9:09 PM Rating: Default
****
4,149 posts
Enfid wrote:
Console games just sell more than PC. A lot of games are released on all consoles but not on PC until some time later. Even games are starting to be developed for console power before PC comes into consideration.


This raises the question 'Why not just develop for console and port to PC?'.

Wouldn't it have made more sense to develop for PS3, push that to it's limits and then port to PC? Seems common sense to most people, but for some reason SE doesn't get it. That or they just don't care.
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#34 Jun 20 2011 at 12:09 AM Rating: Good
***
3,530 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
develop for PS3, push that to it's limits and then port to PC? Seems common sense to most people


I'm not sure "most people's" common sense encompasses the limitations of various kinds of computer hardware... at least, it sure isn't for my parents. >_>
____________________________
"... he called to himself a wizard, named Gallery, hoping by this means to escape the paying of the fifteen hundred crowns..." (Machen 15)

"Thus opium is pleasing... on account of the agreeable delirium it produces." (Burke para.6)

"I could only read so much for this paper and the syphilis poem had to go."
#35 Jun 20 2011 at 3:09 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,153 posts
I guess when this game finally reaches a playable state, the PS3 will be outdated anyway.
Quite possibly they'll simply scrap the whole PS3 conversion. Too many problems for too
little results. Unless they really expect hordes of PS3 owners to suddenly join in - which
I sincerely doubt.
#36 Jun 20 2011 at 6:03 AM Rating: Good
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
Crystal Tools is probably as much a mess of spaghetti code as FFXI's engine is. It's pretty clear by now that SE does not know what they are doing when it comes to writing a clean engine with an organized maintainable codebase.

They spent 5 years writing an engine that has the feature set of a 2006 engine and system requirements that are steep by 2011 standards. Now they are saying that it would be too hard to add DirectX 10/11 support?

A properly designed 3D engine would put all the code that interfaces the guts of the program to the 3D API in a modular front end that can be extended with code to interface it to another API. This is pretty standard stuff for 3D engines these days.

My belief is that SE was in way over their heads with this project which is how they ended up taking 5 years to create a slow outdated engine with system requirement far too high for what it's capable of. It's telling that SE's next engine is going to be based on the engine that Eidos created internally for the Kain & Lynch series rather than anything written by SE.


Note that cross platform works just fine without limiting the PC version. It's done all the time with Unreal and CryEngine based games. Code and scripts for your game are basically just ported straight over to the PS3 or 360 version of the engine and the development kit handles scaling the textures and other art assets to fit within PS3 and 360 memory constraints.



Edited, Jun 20th 2011 9:17am 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
#37 Jun 20 2011 at 7:16 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,214 posts
While I don't have direct access to the PS3 apis, I do know that there have been complaints between developers and Microsoft concerning DirectX10, and 11 followed suit. The changes in the API for DirectX caused some compatibility issues. So, yes, depending on what they are using for code conversion, and graphics/rendering libraries, yes, this could quite possibly, and very likely would be something that will not work with out redesigning their rendering engine. I am assuming that they are using the same (or based off the same) engine from 11, they would be limited by what they see as can be supported between the two. Once you have something like that coded, it's something you don't want to revisit unless you absolutely have to. Changes in the core rendering engine can cause significant breakage in the collision detection, physics, perspective, lighting, tracking, animation timing and sequencing. A perfect example of this would be Everquest. While I wasn't big on playing this game, it had some serious clipping and rendering issues, and they repeatedly did updates to the graphics engine.

The Tunare render engine was originally designed for dx5. When they upgraded to Tunare 2.0 it was a move to Dx8 (as Microsoft was updating DirectX faster then game developers were updating games), and due to all the issues they had with Tunare 2.0 Sony updated the engine creating 3.0, which was DX9 compatible. After Microsoft got so much flak for updating so frequently, DX9 became a standard for nearly 5 years. The recent introduction of DX10 (Windows Vista), and 11 (Windows 7) have created another development fraction in the gaming industry.

While you pretty much need a computer that will run windows 7 in order to play 14, with the version of DirectX that is used, then you can use XP. With that being said, for the people who keep asking for DirectX 10 and 11, what are you looking for with either of them?

Are you aware of the differences rendering wise, api wise, or design wise between 9, 10 and 11?

They are not what you think they are (if you are complaining about someone not supporting one over the other).

The recent updates to DirectX were to accommodate the internal failures of GDI and GDI+ (which were released for DirectX in 9.0c) within the Vista environment.

They were also designed around OS level updates to Windows Vista to allow for direct memory access for new PCI-E style systems including GPU optimizations, and better video tearing prevention, and direct support for many new command-sets.

All of these are handled by different methods, and there are ways to work with them using the DirectX APIs without needing to force your framework to the latest and greatest DirectX version.

Now, having said that, a game that is designed for more then one system, developers try and write a single version of the game. Inside the code they add a series of directives, and conditions to allow for the code to be compiled compatible for one system as opposed to another.

Doing that requires that each function works in a way that's compatible between the two (proper switching when using a function that is supported in one environment vs another), or is properly seperated so that the proper code executes in the correct environment.

This includes data typing, structure byte alignment, compatible data objects (the textures, bump maps, polys, and the such), which is probably the biggest problem to this. There is also initialization and re-init, and event handling that needs to be done in a windows app, that is not required in a console app (btw, for those who care, this is one of the biggest reason for an game to be full screen only, if you are designing for a console and a PC, since a console doesn't need to be able to switch between different render states, it doesn't need to code overhead (and considering the limited resources on the system, you don't want that kind of code in), so, by blocking it on the PC version, you make the console version run more optimized).

But this is not something that most of you really care about. I understand how the latest and greatest are always wanted by many, but considering that 10 and 11 means that they are forcing people to Vista/Windows 7 (in that order) for the PC version, and considering they are mostly low level API calls, new Shaders, new Instancing, and (with 11) multi-threaded support.

Now, obviously I can see how people would want direct support for DX multi-threaded rendering, but, what does that mean for the game? What would that mean for supporting a single threaded vs multi-threaded rendering? How many developers (especially game developers) are familiar with proper multi-threaded/processor support?

The answer is not many. Simply because it is a new idea in the gaming world. A perfect example of this is the difference between the C and C++ language. Game developers tend to favor the C language. The reason why is not worth the effort to type, but it is fairly significant. Making a large segmentation of classic C developers who are not familiar with most C++ optimizations, STL classes, or worse yet, COM (shiver) that was forced on game developers of the windows environment.

Sorry for the lengthy post, but, as a developer, when someone says I don't like someone giving an excuse, but I don't really understand the underlying concept, they tend to make decisions and ideas based on their feelings and not real world concepts behind it.

With that being said, yes, if it can be thought of in the world of computing, it reason it hasn't is skill and/or understanding.

So, yes, they are not truly limited by PS3, they are limited by their ability to dance around the PS3 limitations in a way that doesn't sacrifice a large amount of time, and risk a high level of issues and/or compatibility, and/or delays.
#38 Jun 20 2011 at 7:35 AM Rating: Decent
****
4,149 posts
KaneKitty wrote:
I'm not sure "most people's" common sense encompasses the limitations of various kinds of computer hardware... at least, it sure isn't for my parents. >_>


Well I'd assume that anyone posting on these forums would grasp it. As for your folks, you could explain both the PS3 limitations and spaghetti code pretty easily.

Imagine PC and PS3 as storage. PC has plenty of room(memory) for whatever stuff(code) you need to put into it. PS3... not so much. SE wants to use both small and large storage for some stuff... that was made in china XD

For some unknown reason SE starts filling up large storage first. The plan is to move to small storage later, but for now the big storage has more than enough space for their stuff so they just start tossing it in with no rhyme to reason.

Because of this poor planning it's harder to find things (fix bugs, make improvements, ect.) and it takes longer than it should. Not only that, but after they finally dig out what they needed they are left with more of a mess than they had to start with. Later on when they try to load the same stuff into small storage it's so disorganized that it doesn't fit and causes even more issues, delays ect.

If SE had started with smaller storage, they would have known what their limitations were and planned accordingly. SE is famous for doing things the wrong way, but to most people this would seem logical. Poor analogy, I know, but it gets the point across.





____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#39 Jun 20 2011 at 2:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
rfolkker wrote:


So, yes, they are not truly limited by PS3, they are limited by their ability to dance around the PS3 limitations in a way that doesn't sacrifice a large amount of time, and risk a high level of issues and/or compatibility, and/or delays.


CryEngine, Unreal, Source, Unigine, etc can all use pretty much any API you want, DirectX 9, 10, 11 or OpenGL without much impact on performance and you can develop your game on the PC and easily port to consoles using their development kits.

Face it, SE doesn't know how to properly write a multi platform 3D engine.



Edited, Jun 20th 2011 5:50pm 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
#40 Jun 20 2011 at 3:09 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,825 posts
Lobivopis wrote:
Face it, SE doesn't know how to properly write a multi platform 3D engine.


1. Programing a single player multi-plat game is way different than programing a MMO that will have a long life and multiple changes while keeping compatability to the "less evolving" system...

2. I'm having trouble pinning down DCUO's specs so I could be wrong here, but the minimum specs are Nvidia 7K series card which aren't even DX10 so I'm assuming that that game is DX9 as well? If so then show me a multi-platform MMO (not Single Player) game that's DX11
____________________________
FFXI:Sylph - Perrin 75 Hume THF; Retired (At least from my use any way)
EVE Online:ScraperX; Retired
WAR:IronClaw- Peryn SW;SkullThrone- Grymloc BO; Retired


#41 Jun 20 2011 at 3:28 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
Quote:
Console games just sell more than PC. A lot of games are released on all consoles but not on PC until some time later. Even games are starting to be developed for console power before PC comes into consideration.


Single player console games are not the same as MMOs. The only successful MMO to date on a console is ironically this game's predecessor. Why? Because of the same issues that SE is dealing with right now with both games. It's too much work and MMOs don't sell as well on a console as opposed to a PC where there is plenty of room for expansion and modding.

Ten years ago it was a really clever idea and made them a lot of money. Now? Even if they do manage to put together a passable Ps3 port that doesn't make everyone's systems choke or just plain look terrible, they have a huge stigma to overcome with the botched release.

Sometimes taking the slow and steady road is the path to success. The Ps3 will only hold them back in the long run no matter how many subs they reclaim (if any) at the time of its release. They have to know that......
#42 Jun 20 2011 at 3:32 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,214 posts
Lobivopis wrote:
rfolkker wrote:


So, yes, they are not truly limited by PS3, they are limited by their ability to dance around the PS3 limitations in a way that doesn't sacrifice a large amount of time, and risk a high level of issues and/or compatibility, and/or delays.


CryEngine, Unreal, Source, Unigine, etc can all use pretty much any API you want, DirectX 9, 10, 11 or OpenGL without much impact on performance and you can develop your game on the PC and easily port to consoles using their development kits.

Face it, SE doesn't know how to properly write a multi platform 3D engine.



Edited, Jun 20th 2011 5:50pm by Lobivopis


But, what is the functional differences between those engines using or not using DirectX 11. Or better said, what is the benefit to using 11.
#43 Jun 20 2011 at 4:19 PM Rating: Good
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
Perrin, ****** Superhero wrote:


2. I'm having trouble pinning down DCUO's specs so I could be wrong here, but the minimum specs are Nvidia 7K series card which aren't even DX10 so I'm assuming that that game is DX9 as well?


PS3 uses OpenGL not Direct3D.

Which makes me wonder why they didn't just make FFXIV use OpenGL to make porting it to other platforms easier if they wanted a multi platform game. OpenGL has been implimented on virtually everything that has a GPU. Not only would it make the game completely platform agnostic, OpenGL is also easier to program than D3D9. Pretty much every machine that's not running Windows is using OpenGL (and even the Xbox 360 has a third party OpenGL implementation available for it)

Edited, Jun 20th 2011 7:43pm 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
#44 Jun 20 2011 at 4:22 PM Rating: Good
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
rfolkker wrote:
Lobivopis wrote:
rfolkker wrote:


So, yes, they are not truly limited by PS3, they are limited by their ability to dance around the PS3 limitations in a way that doesn't sacrifice a large amount of time, and risk a high level of issues and/or compatibility, and/or delays.


CryEngine, Unreal, Source, Unigine, etc can all use pretty much any API you want, DirectX 9, 10, 11 or OpenGL without much impact on performance and you can develop your game on the PC and easily port to consoles using their development kits.

Face it, SE doesn't know how to properly write a multi platform 3D engine.



Edited, Jun 20th 2011 5:50pm by Lobivopis


But, what is the functional differences between those engines using or not using DirectX 11. Or better said, what is the benefit to using 11.


If DirectX 10 and 11 are just an alternate rendering path and there are no improved visuals it will be a little faster. If it does have support for better visuals in 10 and 11 it might be a little slower. Or they might just split the difference and add better MSAA in DirectX 10/11 but without any rendering improvements other than that.


So the answer is "it depends"


Edited, Jun 20th 2011 7:29pm 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
#45 Jun 20 2011 at 4:45 PM Rating: Decent
*
200 posts
Lobivopis wrote:
Perrin, ****** Superhero wrote:


2. I'm having trouble pinning down DCUO's specs so I could be wrong here, but the minimum specs are Nvidia 7K series card which aren't even DX10 so I'm assuming that that game is DX9 as well?


PS3 uses OpenGL not Direct3D.

Which makes me wonder why they didn't just make FFXIV use OpenGL to make porting it to other platforms easier if they wanted a multi platform game.



Edited, Jun 20th 2011 7:34pm by Lobivopis


the reason OpenGL was not used is simple its a corridor builder literally, trying make vast landscapes with OpenGL is like trying to turn rock to water...it can be done you just need the right tool unfortunately that tool hasn't been invented yet.

also in order to get DirectX like functionality out of the PS3, there no doubt going to use libgcm for that.

____________________________


#46 Jun 20 2011 at 5:32 PM Rating: Good
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
FelixValmont wrote:


the reason OpenGL was not used is simple its a corridor builder literally, trying make vast landscapes with OpenGL is like trying to turn rock to water...it can be done you just need the right tool unfortunately that tool hasn't been invented yet.



That's is incorrect. OpenGL 4.0 and DirectX 11 are mostly equivalent in functionality.

Edited, Jun 20th 2011 8:40pm 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
#47 Jun 20 2011 at 5:44 PM Rating: Decent
*
200 posts
Lobivopis wrote:
FelixValmont wrote:


the reason OpenGL was not used is simple its a corridor builder literally, trying make vast landscapes with OpenGL is like trying to turn rock to water...it can be done you just need the right tool unfortunately that tool hasn't been invented yet.



You are incorrect.OpenGL 4.0 and DirectX 11 are mostly equivalent in functionality.


Edited, Jun 20th 2011 8:37pm by Lobivopis



oh yes very good, its too bad the console in question only Goes up to OpenGL ES 1.0 with v2.0 extensions which is the subset equivalent of OpenGL 3.0....now about those games that aren't corridor shooters.

Edited, Jun 20th 2011 7:56pm by FelixValmont
____________________________


#48 Jun 20 2011 at 7:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
FelixValmont wrote:



oh yes very good, its too bad the console in question only Goes up to OpenGL ES 1.0 with v2.0 extensions which is the subset equivalent of OpenGL 3.0....now about those games that aren't corridor shooters.

Edited, Jun 20th 2011 7:56pm by FelixValmont


OpenGL 3.0 is about equivalent to D3D9 in functionality, though much easier to program for. You seem to have some misconceptions about OpenGL. OpenGL is the API that almost every platform that isn't windows uses. It is not "only for corridor shooters" and I don't know where you got that idea from.



Edited, Jun 20th 2011 10:11pm 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
#49 Jun 20 2011 at 10:41 PM Rating: Default
*
200 posts
Lobivopis wrote:
FelixValmont wrote:



oh yes very good, its too bad the console in question only Goes up to OpenGL ES 1.0 with v2.0 extensions which is the subset equivalent of OpenGL 3.0....now about those games that aren't corridor shooters.

Edited, Jun 20th 2011 7:56pm by FelixValmont


OpenGL 3.0 is about equivalent to D3D9 in functionality, though much easier to program for. You seem to have some misconceptions about OpenGL. OpenGL is the API that almost every platform that isn't windows uses. It is not "only for corridor shooters" and I don't know where you got that idea from.



Edited, Jun 20th 2011 10:11pm by Lobivopis


from the fact its mainly used in corridor shooters(linear), no sandbox(openworld) games use OpenGL as far as i'm aware. if they exist ive not seen them. prove me wrong name some games that are openworld and utilize OpenGL.

there still going to utilize libgcm for the port of FFXIV, there's no way in **** it would look good or run efficiently if they just ported over API's.



#50 Jun 21 2011 at 3:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
FelixValmont wrote:


from the fact its mainly used in corridor shooters(linear), no sandbox(openworld) games use OpenGL as far as i'm aware. if they exist ive not seen them. prove me wrong name some games that are openworld and utilize OpenGL.

there still going to utilize libgcm for the port of FFXIV, there's no way in **** it would look good or run efficiently if they just ported over API's.


So basically you're just drawing conclusions based on the fact that shooters are the only games you've seen with OpenGL support.

WoW has OpenGL support. CryEngine also supports OpenGL and has been used for many types of games besides shooters (Aion uses CryEngine for example)



Edited, Jun 21st 2011 6:40am 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
#51 Jun 21 2011 at 5:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
351 posts
Torrence wrote:
Sometimes taking the slow and steady road is the path to success. The Ps3 will only hold them back in the long run no matter how many subs they reclaim (if any) at the time of its release. They have to know that......


I understand that from a technical point-of-view, it may not make much sense. However, from a marketing point of view and getting players (in particular, paying customers) back to the game, this is the only chance FFXIV has. (It's still seems hopeless, but I can't think of a better way to make this work).

For one thing, I believe the Japanese would prefer to play FFXIV on the PS3, and appealing to their "base" is probably the last resort this game has. Also, releasing on a new platform will trigger a new round of platform-specific reviews and a chance for FFXIV to score better this time around.

So, sadly, the "PS3 limitation" must be embraced with open arms, for it's the only way FFXIV can continue to exist as a subscription-based MMO at all.
« Previous 1 2
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 21 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (21)