PS4 Framerate>>>Improved Experience?Follow

Yes. The PS4 will blow the PS3 out if the water in performance. Yoshi stated recently that the ps4 version will compete with mid to High settings on a pc. 200+ characters will be viewable at one time.

From what I can gather the PS4 will preform much like a current medium-high end PC would. ( I don't think it will be able to compete with someone running an SLI titan set up with a six core CPU however, though few have that kind of set up)

No more muddy textures ect.

Im sure it wont lock up as much during zerg fates either, though im sure it will a bit, even high end pc's get lag sometimes


Edited, Sep 7th 2013 2:25pm by Strangerous

Yeah, it's not not really fair to compare a 2,000 dollar SLI GPU configuration to a 400 console. I think what people need to realize is that FFXIV doesn't need over-priced GPU's to play this game. The PS4 version will run this game at 1080 with no popup or muddy textures. A high frame rate is expected too. Basically the PS4 version with the Vita remote feature is the definitive way to play FFXIV. The people that waste ridiculous amounts of money for diminishing returns and e-peen numbers don't get it.

Edited, Sep 7th 2013 1:59pm by ShadowedgeFFXI

#PCMasterRace

Heh. And while a 400 dollar console may be cheaper than a 2000 dollar SLI setup, the thing with the PC is you can start at the lower end, and increases it as needed. Good luck upgrading your console in the decade it lives. And when you upgrade your PC, you rarely have to worry about not being able to play your existing games.

That's true, I can't argue that high-end rigs aren't taxed by the games also on consoles. I would point out though that gaming companies purposely have held back franchises simply because the uber elite PC class doesn't buy enough software. So you sit there twinkling your thumbs waiting for next gen consoles to come out so you can play them on PC with your monster overpriced rig. If they actually built these games for the PC, the games would look better and be out sooner. But hey, let's rip on the consoles players who are having fun with the same games on lower settings.





So you mustn't be aware of the shifting trend that is phasing out the PC dominance. It's called cloud gaming and once it hits full stride, the PC as we know it will be dead. There is a reason Sony purchased Gaikai and people need to get up to speed with that. The days of the uber spec PC platform are limited. Tablets are leading the charge pushing game companies and software companies in general to support the most lucrative market. Obviously it's more difficult to enhance a console or tablet with raw power so there lies the trump card...cloud gaming. Once they start streaming games well enough that only an input device is required, the end of the PC gaming era is at hand. People think your rig today is impressive, you're living in a fantasy world. The power of the cloud would take that Titan SLI and multiply it by at least 50x the power. The console players will have the last laugh.

As for the PS4, I don't agree with your comment. They've already tipped their hat with one of the new cloud features. Download 1% of the game and stream the rest while you play. Online games will see enhanced gameplay(graphics too) when the PS4 comes out swinging in a few years after Devs are able to push it. The hardware era is over. Like the physical copy era of discs, we've moved on to digital for most of our entertainment needs. The cloud is the next evolutionary step that will phase out the hardware building class of gamers. It will take likely 10 more years, but it's close. The PS4 will be fine down the road.

Edited, Sep 7th 2013 2:40pm by ShadowedgeFFXI

Well if what im hearing about ps3 is true, can't even target? that would make this game unplayable so i will just assume if i get a ps4 that SE will give me a free copy of this game.

I do not like the muddy textures. My character is super cute in the benchmark char creator thing on my PC, but I almost never get to see how she looks unless its up close. Otherwise, muddy.

Like the above poster said, you can target.

It takes a bit of getting used to at first. DPAD: ◄ ►; ← I used those to cycle through targets(players and targets). For mobs, it takes me a bit of preparing. Can do two things, use the DPAD or wait for mob to reach the tank, and run up to mob and press X to target it. I may need some correcting there, I don't remember how to go about it too well right now. If there's a better way to target on the PS3, I sure would like to know.

Accidentally targetting carby/any pet has been a long standing problem I've had even in FFXI haha.

The PS4 should, in theory, run the game at 60 FPS on high settings.

Edited, Sep 9th 2013 12:27am by LucasNox

I think on paper that sounds great, and WAAAAAAAY into the future ( 10 -15+ years or so) that's probably true. However, speaking form experience trying to program against cloud based tech, the real time feedback loop you need to get distributed graphic rendering, GPS within the world and player interaction, you have to have <10ms for all that. Anything more and you break the illusion. Think about tablet delays between the touchscreen and the interaction, why it doesn't feel like you're really drawing. It would be magnified 10x at a minimum if we did this on current network tech.

On the flip side though, I do think that high end PC's are on the way out, just because we're nearing a point where photo realistic 3d graphics are getting cheap to produce. I give that another 5 years and we'll probably be sub-$300 ( see, next gen after PS4 / Xbox one) for real time rendering of avatar quality and better.

To get real time this quality:
http://www.hdwallpapers.in/walls/avatar_high_resolution-wide.jpg
yah I think it's 5 years out.

My crappy understanding is that I've spent time writing 3d rendering engines, and yes I agree that it's more than poly count. We're really close to uncanny valley territory right now in games.

see the unreal 4 engine:
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17p56oixbawnujpg/original.jpg

To me that looks one more rev away from getting real time photo quality. I don't think the current tech will get us there, but maybe I'm wrong. On the flip side though, You can run the U3 engine on a mobile platform right now for $300. So again - yes I think it's 5 years out, especially when you start talking about Moore's law and general technology curve adjustments. See this article on Intel's shift away from high end rigs:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-03/intel-ceo-designate-krzanich-plans-faster-shift-to-mobile-chips.html

just stuff to chew on...

I think you have a basis, but for the wrong reasons.

You assume that there is some 'limit' to how real you can make something look in CGI, whereas I pointed out somebody probably said that five years ago, and five years before that, and five years before that...

There are two factors beyond simple graphical fidelity, your angle, that provide need for more and more computing power: Physics and Resolution.

To be honest, games have barely scratched the surface of simulating a physical environment. Pre-broken walls and crap in stuff like Battlefield 4 is equivalent to prebaked AO versus true AO. How far off is breaking things, things meaning all things, to a minimal (read: visible within the confines of gameplay) scale? Assets will need internally mapped materials as much as they already have externally, and the depth of possible detail is, naturally, upped by a factor of a third dimension tangental to the surface. The depth of processing plausible for properly simulating, for instance, a tank round penetrating a mixed wood and brick building is rather unfathomable by today's standards. Your assertion is hilariously shortsighted in this aspect.

Second, take any game of the current generation, and run it at 4k resolution. Hell, crank it up to a retinal grade PPD resolution for an extreme screen size or, a step further, something like the Oculus Rift with such PPD. You're facing an exponential increase in processing to approach the latter examples.

This thus falls back to a car analogy: People think car engines are getting more powerful, when in fact car engines are actually getting more efficient. It just so happens that when you're more efficient with a resource, you end up producing more power when consuming the same amount of said resource. If you tune your car's engine to make more power, you're actually making it more efficient for each revolution it makes moreso than just cramming more air and fuel in. You could certainly have the performance of today's enthusiast-class PC in 1999, it just would have been the size of an office building and been sucking down megawatts of power.

tl;dr You're rather naive for a 3D engine developer if you think games are just graphics and the uncanny valley is the last frontier.

Where you might have a point, again for the wrong reason, is a matter of art pipeline. There's only so much art that could plausibly be produced for a game, so it becomes a money factor in producing extreme visual fidelity.

At the same time, stuff like normal maps, subsurface scattering, and hypotheticals like intelligent materials that map themselves to a shape are functions that derive a proxy of art effort from processing power, ergo you can just have raw processing power determine what an object looks like rather than having an artist design it manually. We already sort of started on this with 3D rendering in the first place: We no longer draw every angle of a subject (sprites), but instead tell the CPU/GPU it's shape and let it draw it from a camera's perspective. Exactly the same concept in that you can always spend processing power to, circling back to an earlier point, simulate the appearance of an object more precisely than even an artist can develop it.

Edited, Sep 8th 2013 12:18pm by Raelix

I work on the networking side and the cons you list there are very relevant. I stated in a previous post that it's going to take at least 10 years to push cloud gaming into the mainstream. On a closed network, it's already possible despite the latency concerns. Once the bandwidth exceeds 500MBps. the quality is much better. A cell phone typically uses 10ms from the omni-directional antenna to the wired network. Latency is hardly noticeable and that same standard can easily be applied to a cloud network. Again, I agree that we need a few more years for the tech to be ready, but my overall point was factual correct as you pointed out in your reply.

The PS4 is able to take advantage of the cloud network to enhance games right now. They might only be graphical touches here and there, but it's completely possible to do more down the road. This technology benefits consoles and tablets more because the payout is so great for companies. I totally agree with your final point. Thanks for posting such a open-minded reply. It's rare and much appreciated to speak with a an actual professional on these forums.

You'd have to be within about 500 miles of your server to get 3ms one-way, not counting per-hop processing.

Naive indeed...