PS3 Limitations

Go look at Uncharted2 and then come back and tell me that the PS3 and X360 are comparable.

That said, I'd encourage anyone to go look at Uncharted2 and tell me where are the limitations that some of you are talking about...

They're not talking about now, at least, I'm know I'm not. When the PS2 came out it was pretty cutting edge...look at it now.

In a comparable time frame, the PS3 is gonna be pretty LOL just like PS2 is today. If anyone thinks otherwise they're crazy...

FF14 is coming out a year from now... What kind of "cutting edge" technology is gonna be developed from here to the end of 2010 that make the PS3 to have "limitations"? As a matter of fact, the game(ff14) should be almost done by now, if they're planning to release it in a year from now(with beta coming as late as spring 2010)...

Do you seriously mean to tell me that there are limitations on a game that was made specifically for the ps3 on it's 2nd, 3rd year of its exsistense?.

I dont believe that sorry.

Better yet, I'm not worried about any limitations tbh(much less on the ps3). SE has been talking about PS2 limitations since the game came out... Basically they've been blaming the PS2 as a way out to not give us more inventory space just to force us to keep making more mules and more mules till no end...

And the reason they will not do this in FFXIV is??

Also, PS2 was released March 4th, 2000 in Japan. FFXI was released May 16, 2002 in Japan. 2 years later. PS3 was released November 11, 2006...we've already gone beyond the time between console and release, and FFXIV is how far out? A year?

Anyways, regardless of the truth of the limitations, if SE says that the PS3 can't handle "so and so" that a PC could...chances are, said thing won't be coming out. Hence the limitation...

Seriously, why do console fans pretend like their console of choice is going to be relevant forever? We all know it's not true...neither the 360 nor the PS3 is gonna be hot ***5 years from now.

Dubont said:

eventually yes oh and in regards to swieter's comment about it being meant for 360...thats obsurd. Square and Sony have been partners for a long time so just about every FF game (now anyway) is considered for a sony system first. No game that square releases (anytime soon) will be considered for 360 before anything else lol besides, PS3 still has Square exclusives that u cant get on any other system ^^

Um... when did Last Remnant and Infinite Undiscovery come out on ps3? I didnt realize they got those games yet or at all for that matter.

As for relevence, I've owned most every system and loved all of them for one reason, the games. Its nice to have all the bells and whistles that comes with a system. I love my 360... even though Ive gotten red ringed and lugging it back and forth from work and home is a chore, I love it. I love it because of the games that come out for it. I loved my dreamcast, my ps2, ps1, etc etc. because of the games that you were able to play for them. I dont own a ps3 yet because of that main reason, there is not a game out that says "I have to buy that game, and that game requires me to have a ps3!" When the day comes that there is a game that is on the ps3 and the ps3 only, I will buy one.

after 30min of FF14 being released we will create Virtual gaming and with this headset you can enter the game!

because of this the ps3 limitation is making impossible for us to implement this

:3

yeah im bored so wut >.>

all 360 and PC games can be played on a PS3 if you know what u are doing. Im actually playing Crisis on mine right now ^^ Also FFvs13 is going to be out ONLY for PS3 and its better than FF13 imo. Better graphics...better main characters...better all around.

Console war?

gtfo mah intraweb son

console war is ftw. I mean its pretty much what this thread is about

I don't know about you guys but ever since the hype about the Physics engine cards that takes over all physic functions of pc games like GRAW2 I would like SE to give an option like this for us who bought this cursed card that almost no one uses. Freeing up the CPU, Ram, and GPU memory could make the game sexier without sacrificing performance, well atleast for those that have the Ageia physx cards....

As for PS3 limitations, if you have the money and the right setup its already possible to outdo the PS3 but that's not important, the important thing is that the developers have room to add features they want to add and give features we want to have. As long as those to two things could be done there's no problem.

Last thing PS3 is a console its not a pc where new CPU's GPU cards and MB that support higher bus speeds and what not but it is a system that no one knows what it can do yet considering it being new. One thing is for sure though, not one single godamn company is taking advantage of the bluray discs which can store over 20GB of data yet still charges you 60$ for a godamn game. Yet I can buy the same game on my pc and yet it would look and play better on a godamn dvd, that just pisses me off to know end...

really tbh the reason the ps3 is so fast is that it dont run windows >.>. if you dont have 20~30 processes runnin in the back ground you dont need the extra mhz or ram. think about it 8800gt is like the min you can run aero glass theme on vista, seriously you need a good gameing pc just to get the most out of vista. the only reason pc's are "faster" is because they have to be to run all the extra ***

the only "limitation" i can see for ps3 is HDD space but with 80gigs..you have well over the amount needed for a game like this.

lol pull the 80gig hdd out and toss a 500gig in it >.>
im actually lookin for a used 40gig system to do that to

im just saying though..ppl talk about PS3 limitations lol as far as i can see the HDD "might" become a problem if you have a ***load of games (i only have about 15) what with all the updates..plus music...and pictures...and useless ***you dont need...even then you should still have enough so.... PS3 limitations = 0

@Chairo, I thought blu-ray disks had 36GB of storage? I may have pulled that number out of my arse, but that's what I thought anyway. They're still quite an expensive form of media though, the disk alone is quite a bit more expensive than a cd or dvd, and that's before you put any data on it.

Also, pretty sure the majority of games don't render in full 1080HD. They'd certainly be capable of doing CS's at full resolution, but don't forget that for gameplay it still has to actually generate every frame as you do it. ***, I'm rendering an animation at the moment and it's taking 3 minutes per frame at 720HD, that's a damn site smaller than 1080HD :p

@Blazza Blue-ray discs are like between 20-28GB, I forgot the exact number myself but I was planning on getting Blue-ray drive so I can store my games/anime and Jdramas on those discs lol.

As for resolutions like 720p etc I think in pc resolution 720HD is 1024 or 1280x720 and 1080HD is 1440x900. PC games nowadays don't really even give you an option of playing games below 1280 anymore lol. Games that ran at full res of 1280 or 1440 were Crysis, Fear, Fear2, Empire total war, Graw2, RBS:Vegas, and almost all games made since those at least on the pc.

A PS3 should be able to handle it considering the best way to cut down loading is to pre-fetch data from the HD and store it in Ram, kinda how like how Oblivion has done it. Load times on games can actually be incredibly short if you have a lot of Ram, which is why games like Crysis that I had running at 1280x700 with everything maxed out (except water quality, which is just monstrous considering your on a godamn beach 40% of the time)and load times took only about 10 seconds at the longest.

Btw I came up with the conclusion might be 720hd because when I tried to burn dvds with resolutions of 1280x720 or 1440x900 the HD tv we have says the it can't play it because the resolution is too high, so I'm guessing its either 1024 or actually just 720.

1080p means 1920x1080 progressive lines of resolution. If you compared that to any type of PC monitor resolution it would be the same [16:9] size. The two widescreen ratios that are most common are 16:10 (1920x1200, 1680x1050, 1440x900...) and 16:9 (1920x1080, 1280x720, 720x480).

@Dubont: The PS3 supports hard drive upgrade, any normal SATA laptop usually will slide right in, and there are adapters for normal sized HDDs that sit outside of the PS3. I have a 350 GB drive in mine. Regardless, XIV shouldn't be that large, unless all sound was uncompressed, and all textures were uncompressed and sorted in folders with silly names like MASSIVE_MESH_TEXTURE.BMP. Honestly the system the XI uses for storage is very barbaric, everything is sorted in numbered folders making the game very modifiable with ease, nothing is compressed due to what I can only assume is faster reads/less CPU congestion for the PS2 version.

There's really no doubt the PS3 will become the limiting factor simply because it's spec is fixed while the PC isn't. MMOs have lifetimes much longer than those of any console so this is unavoidable.

While you could say this is also true of the 360 it is almost certain that the PS3 will tap-out long before the 360 does because the Cell is dog-***. The only reason anything runs on the platform at all is because Sony threw a ***-load of cash at NVidia to redesign their parts to take on extra functions, effectively turning the "CPU" into little more than a very cumbersome I/O processor.

It's possible SE will be able to design around the Cell and that in so doing they may make the other platforms look to blame (much like weather effects do in FFXI because the PS2 ignored modern GPU designs so the game does particle effects in the CPU). Even in this case the limitation will be the fault of the PS3.

k i'm gonna say it.

People are $&*(! idiots about consoles, PCs, hardware, software. EVERYTHING.

K I know that's not true but threads like these always want to make me think that way.

Please do your research before bashing something. The Cell and Xenon processors are both mild variations of the PPC G5 processor. Both have same instruction set. Same number of registers, etc. They're sisters. Oh and the Wii uses a G3 era PPC too (32bit and lacks the Altivec extensions).

The PS2 limitations are bogus too. That's never been the issue. The issue is why the PC version runs so slow compared to typical PC games. Cuz it's a shitty port. But blaming the PS2 is laughable. Look at FFXII. Look at GT4. Huh?

BTW Blu-ray supports 25GB per layer, dual layer Blu-ray discs are 50GB. End of that discussion.

Sharing an instruction set does not mean related performance. A common lineage with better processors does nothing to change the fact the Cell is a dog because of bad design and implementation. People might want to cast their minds back to all the BS Sony et al were spouting about it replacing ALL processors on earth through a crazy distributed processing model. Unsurprisingly this never happened, all it did was delay release and cripple the product irreparably.

As for the PS2 limits, if you think they don't exist you're just wrong. The PS2 was a great console in it's day but that was a very, very long time ago. Tbh the fact you dismiss the PC version as a "port" says a lot about how much you know on this topic.

Many ppl keep talking about limitations(mostly xbox fans) but SE never once said that the ps2 had any limitations graphically... The limitations they spoke about were the inventory space crap.

Like I said, SE blamed the PS2 just to make us create mules etc... 7years later, they come out with some device that IF WE BUY IT they'll miraculously give us 80 more inventory space slots(which we all fell for)...

What happened to the PS2 limitations that they spoke about for years? What happaned to "We can't make the inventory space any bigger because the ps2 has some limitations"(i'm paraphrasing).

How come all of a sudden if you gave them $10 extra they forgot about the apparent limitations the ps2 has, or should I say, had?.

Again, the PS3 wont have any types of limitations a year or 2, etc,etc,etc from now. Graphically the game is already set. It's not like MMO's evolve graphically over time...

I will say it one more time... Go look at Uncharted2 and tell me that the ps3 will have any type of limitations. Can you imagine Uncharted3?... And for the x360 fans, you'd need to go thru 5-6 RROD's just to start uncharted2 on your x360s lol.

=Q I'm done...

Nothing "miraculous" happened, they added a new storage just like when AU came out.

The limit on number of items in memory is still there and is still forced on us by the PS2.

Obviously you're a big fan of the PS3 and because of this:



You're obviously kinda negative about the 360.

The argument about which is a better console is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, as PC's evolve they eclipse the consoles. It's a fact, it can't be denied. So yes, any console that FFXIV comes out for is eventually gonna limit the PC version.

I'd like to see them seperate users, honestly, but I know a lot of people wouldn't care for that, obviously those people that play on multiple platforms, but also a lot of people that have friends that are cross platform. However, I think they need to have a plan in place where they can push a specific platform to it's limits independently of the other ones. I know PC FFXI users would have appreciated a graphical update, even if the core game play was the same...it just woulda been nice is all. We shouldn't have to edit the freaking registry to get the game to look halfway decent on a freaking PC. That's always been ridiculous to me...

Will SE do it? Doubtful. Easier to keep the game static, blame limitations for lack of improvements, and release an all new MMO every 7-8 years.

EDIT: Again, I'm not for or against any specific console. I just think that people are missing the point and think this is a big PS3 bashing session or something. Eventually the PS3 is gonna be crap compared to PC. As is the 360. It's not a surprise lol

So let me ask you a question... You've got me all confused now...

What the heck are you talking about then? Are there limitations or arent there any?.

I thought you were saying there were limitations... However, what I'm taking from these last quotes is that you dont think there were any limitations ever(Which is what I've been saying).

I know that they've given us inventory space in the past but that's another example that contradicts the limitations that YOU and SE keep talking about...

Bah, I'm just done talking about this, think what you want(which is not much anymore I see now lol).

First of all, the guy that posted before me was the one that brought up the console crap. I told it like it is so you shoulda quoted him not me... Or is it that you're "A little too positive about the x360" yourself?...

Second, how did the ps2 limited the PC version of FFXI?... The game was designed for the ps2, the PC version came like a year later so explain to me how did the ps2 limit the pc version please. You keep talking about limitations what kind of limitations?... (AGAIN!! =Q) SE kept saying that the "ps2 limitations" came in the form of inventory space.

Now, since you know so much(more than SE I'd say?) tell me what kind of limitations the ps2 presented to the PC version of FFXI?.

Please whatever your response is make it so that I don't have to answer back... I'm tired of this "discussion".

It's really very simple. The limit is on how many items can be handled in memory at one time. Adding new storage types doesn't affect this because it's not increasing the amount that the game has to handle at any one time.

They can't increase inventory to 160 because of PS2 limitations. This has always been the case and always will be unless they dump the PS2 support.

Not true. It was developed on both platforms in parallel, in fact the principle development platform was done on the PC version as was almost all the play-testing. The PS2 limits were forced onto both versions "to keep it fair".

The PS2 version came out a few months earlier for several reasons, mostly because it was the dominant platform in Asia (English language testing was still going on in PC-based betas) and because Sony paid them.

So why do they keep adding Gobbiebags?

The storage limits are enough, in my opinion. PC users were saddled with a deficiency because of the console. SE had little incentive to fix it, so the blame falls on their shoulders, not Sony's...but the limitation is there regardless.

They are designing the game to run on the PS3 and PC, and I'm SURE, eventually the 360. Are they going to improve the PC version to meet with the more powerful hardware that comes out over time? They could...Everquest did it. Imagine the JOY that PC users would have felt if SE would have upgraded the PC engine. Imagine how many people would have actually played the game (and yes, I've heard "it looks like ***" from a few people as for why they don't play FFXI, granted they don't know how to edit the registry and ***...but honestly, they shouldn't have to. Even when FFXI came out people weren't running games that low end graphically on the PC)

As far as the "a little too positive about the x360" part...I'll say this. *** the PS3. *** the 360. Consoles *** blow compared to the PC in every regard except two: ease of use and cost. However, I can upgrade my ***...you gonna throw a new GPU in your PS3? Or put more RAM in your 360? Yeah....it's all great right now, but like I said, in 5-6 years it's gonna start getting dated. If you think differently you're deluding yourself...

Who knows, maybe SE will actually develop ***independently for the different platforms? Maybe FFXIV actually WILL take advantage of the better hardware of the PC's out there. Pretty big *** maybe, though, considering the PC version of FFXI looks like slightly prettier PS2 game...