Google+

Square Enix blames PlayStation 3 for Final Fantasy XIV delay

PlayStation 3 gamers wanting to get their hands dirty with Final Fantasy XIV are going to have to wait six months longer than PC gamers. And publisher Square Enix is now saying, "Hey, don't blame us."

A producer at the Final Fantasy studio gave some new details about why the planned simultaneous launch between console and PC will end up being far from reality. Guess what? Turns out, PS3 isn't quite a high-end PC...



"On the PC, they have enormous memory. For PS3, there’s a restriction. They are adjusting the memory size and customising it; it took longer then we were expecting," said FFXIV producer Hiromichi Tanaka at last week's Gamescom in an interview with VG247, just published today. Tanaka did not specify exactly what kind of memory problem was plaguing the PS3 version, but given that the average gaming level PC these days has a couple gigs of RAM and the PS3 has 512MB (split into two banks), we're going to hazard a guess that there's just not enough of it.

It has been quite the struggle for Square Enix to get this game onto any console platform. Microsoft rejected it out of the gate, saying it didn't like the idea of a cross-platform MMO on the Xbox 360 (though more recent rumors suggest a 360 version will exist at some point). Now, the PS3 FFXIV will only be an afterthought to the PC release.

Tanaka's comments suggest the problem still isn't completely fixed, so the rescheduled March 2011 launch for Final Fantasy XIV on PS3 is assumedly still tentative. Final Fantasy XI, the last online Final Fantasy title, did not face these challenges (at least not publicly) when ported from PC to Xbox 360 and PS2. This can only mean that XIV is going to be face meltingly huge...or, it means that people just forgot how to do stuff. Maybe we'll go with that.

Aug 24, 2010

Snubtacular burn: Final Fantasy XIV is PS3 exclusive because Microsoft didn’t want it
Xbox 360 bosses snubbed upcoming MMO for being a platform ho

 


All 14 Final Fantasy logos explained
We examine the core games' cryptic artwork for their true meaning, plus bonus images from the spin-offs

 

Final Fantasy XIV - hands-on
Join us on a journey frought with danger, marmots, and cat girls

27 comments

  • ragingearth - August 25, 2010 4:29 p.m.

    Hmm, I was kind of intrigued by this game. But when you look at it, it's nothing but re-hashed designs from FF XI. Granted in a lot more detail, but they still look the same. The classes are pretty much the same, too. All and all, I might give it a play. Hope they fixed the money system, because it was a SERIOUS PAIN trying to get money in XI.
  • ScruffMoney - August 25, 2010 4:12 p.m.

    @GoldenMe I am, I'm offended by how bad a writer this guy is
  • HereComesTheHypeTrainCHOOCHOO - August 25, 2010 1:16 p.m.

    Sony's PS3 specs have been locked down for at least the last 3 years and Square Enix is only NOW claiming to understand that there is a limit of 512MB of RAM on it?!? Didn't these clowns run into that limitation in FF13? What a totally bullshit, made-up excuse as to why the PS3 version won't ship alongside the PC one. If you knew what the hardware was capable of when you started the project and built a game that wasn't doable on that hardware, whose fault is that, Square Enix's or Sony's?
  • Octoboy - August 25, 2010 10:33 a.m.

    Wait, Microsoft didn't want FF XIV?! As far as I know, SE didn't want to go with Live. Because the users would actually have to pay for two services, the FF Online fee and Xbox Live fee. So they went with Sony, because PSN is free and thus more suitable for an Online RPG.
  • solace357 - August 25, 2010 7:26 a.m.

    This game needs SOOOO much work, the beta is utter crap control-wise and the menus are so cluttered... The PC version needs the delay as well....
  • frozenghost - August 25, 2010 5:29 a.m.

    Does anyone care about this game anyway? Hey Square, unless you do a remake of Final Fantasy VII, you can forget about people caring for Final Fantasy.
  • Ultima - August 25, 2010 5 a.m.

    n00b your eagle eyed vision is impressive. It is Japanese though and so must be included by law.
  • CurryIsGood - August 25, 2010 3:53 a.m.

    OH so a $300 colsole has less memory than a 1000-2000 mega gaming rig HOLY SH*T
  • n00b - August 25, 2010 3:44 a.m.

    hey i just noticed that there's a girl with a thong in the logo
  • WhiteCredo - August 25, 2010 3:07 a.m.

    Ah, curse Square-Enix, developers complaining about making games on specific supports, this is laughable. Crying because wanting to do too much, not even for us, gamers. Period.
  • KaiokenKid - August 25, 2010 1:40 a.m.

    @Johnny Maverik, You didnt know that? PS3 also has less video memory.
  • Jordo141 - August 25, 2010 1:38 a.m.

    Em.. Square Enix... It is your fault; you are making the game for the PS3, Sony didn't make the PS3 for you...
  • n00b - August 25, 2010 1:25 a.m.

    hey guys, if you buy this game you are going to get ripped off you can only play for 1 hour per class a day before your gains shrink to 0 so that translate to paying a monthly fee for a game where you can only play a limited amount of time. check it out http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2010/08/24/final-fantasy-xiv-players-only-allowed-1-hour-a-day/ also highschool of the dead is getting better and better
  • JohnnyMaverik - August 25, 2010 12:39 a.m.

    "the PS3 has 512MB (split into two banks)" Oh my O.o
  • oufour - August 25, 2010 12:37 a.m.

    does anyone really care that much? @bazylastard and that's only if you buy new 60$ games, not counting used games or games at reduced price.
  • BazyLastard - August 24, 2010 11:50 p.m.

    @kaizer123 - Sure, but let's do the math here real quick - Even if you're paying $15 per month for an MMO, and you figure a new console game costs $60, that's 1 less console game you can afford every 4 months. So you're wondering how many other games you could've bought with the money you spent on your MMO? Exactly 3 per year. There, you don't have to wonder any more.
  • KaiokenKid - August 24, 2010 11:13 p.m.

    Imgema, Both consoel have 512mbs of RAM total, but PS3s ram is split into two parts and each part is tied to either the CPU and the GPU. The CPU has 256mbs of RAM tied to it and the GPU has 256 mbs tied to it. thats teh max amount of RAM each has. PS3 cannot distribute more RAM out of the 512mb pool to one or the other. For Example, if the game required more GPU ram on PS3, you cannot have the RAM distribution be 300mbs for GPU and 212mbs for CPU. It has to be a max of 256bs for CPU and a max 256mbs for GPU. 360 has the same amount of total RAM, 512mbs, its just that if the console needs to use more RAM on the GPU then the CPU for a part of a game, it can do that because its a shared memory archetecture. Anyway, if this was coming to 360 as well, im sure well be hearing the same thing.
  • KaiokenKid - August 24, 2010 11:09 p.m.

    NO WAY! Your telling me that a console has less memory then a PC? Mind=Blown, Squareenix.
  • Imgema - August 24, 2010 11 p.m.

    I thought that the PS3 had only 256mb ram, and the Xbox360 512mb.
  • JakeyBaby - August 24, 2010 10:53 p.m.

    It's almost like they never saw it coming :O I find it beyond belief how these developers are still blaming thier tools which they've had for quite a while now. There is no one to blame, other than the developers themselves. In almost every scenario. Example: Developement costs. Solution? : Plan to make a smaller game. Example2: Memory restrictions. Solution? : Take the LOWEST system specs and work to that, saving TIME, MONEY, and MY PATIENTS. There are plenty of options open to developers, and at times like this I have doubts about their professionalism. It's a broken record I tells thee.

Showing 1-20 of 27 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000