Seems as if FFXI is doing good, to say the least.

[cthellis42]

The question of total "usable" userbase is silly anyway. Each MMORPG could potentially "use" all PC owners (excepting the ones with way-too-bad 3D cards), which makes that number alone enormous. You can limit yourself to those identified as "PC Gamers" but even that number is floated way up, because many only play simple games and card games, and wouldn't even remotely consider playing a MMORPG.

So basically, "who cares?" The point is it is available to both PC and PS2 markets and will be expanding to more, which gives it more options than other MMORPGs. Some include Mac owners as well as PC (Shadowbane does, WoW will) which gives them extra potential users who don't have many MMO options. FFXI does as well, and PS2 owners are far more numerous and all console owners are directly "gamers" because that's what a console DOES. If someone wants to play the game they buy it. If someone wants to buy the HDD alone they get the game as well (at least for now) which could attract others in anyway. Lack of a broadband adaptor won't stop anyone, because if they want to play the game they'll just get THAT, too.

The PS2 audience is potentially large, filled with gamers, has few MMO options currently, and is the main home of those who like/love the Final Fantasy license itself. Is it a big boon to the game? Um... Yes. (It's also a boon that people don't have to split up on dedicated servers, so the markets can co-exist.)

Point is... uh... what IS the point at bringing it up? Does FFXI have more potential players? Yes. And this is a good thing that other games would wish for (and that Everquest has tried to tap as well, though their console version is not the same as the one everyone else plays, which lessens the appeal). Does it float their subscribers above what they'd have if they were just a PC MMORPG? Most definitely. Does it matter? Not in the slightest. The only stat that comes into play to determine how healthy the game is is through their active subscribers, which is right now at 500k+. Since they're all giving SquareEnix money, do they care where they come from? They have a bigger MMORPG-playing crowd to tap on PC, but also more competition there, and they have a large userbase, with many license-inclined players and few options on PS2--but people less understanding of what MMORPGs are in general. They'll probably have subscriber sway one way or another, but they've still had good retention and steady growth, so I can only imagine them getting more as they expand to new markets. (They'd best get on another expansion, though. People like expansions. )

Does it matter how or why the game is split? Not really. Sates the curiosity, would give interesting points to study... But the game is solid, doing well, and has been before it came to the US for well over a year. <shrugs>

 

[jvd]

1 Million users for a total (usable) userbase of less than 5 million is quite good if you ask me. We'll have to see if the game has staying power, but i think add-ons and updates should take care of that.

where did you get a user base of less than 5 million . Its out in japan on the pc and ps2 and the usa on the pc. That is much more than a user base of 5 million ???

 

[Lazy8s]

Square made a mistake making FFXI a PS2 console-exclusive. The DC network managed to register over 2.5 million worldwide in its shortened existence on a console that only sold around 10 million in total; this manages to compare favorably to the number of online PS2 users even though that system has sold many tens of millions more units.

The Final Fantasy name sells hardware, so bringing it to an online-ready console like DC (which was alive at the time and could've used such mainstream publicity to convince SEGA to allow it to stay viable at least a little longer) or Xbox would've brought some of the Final Fantasy fanbase over and also increased sales of the system (in turn, expanding the potential userbase Square would be selling to). But now, Square's potential online console userbase this generation will always be limited by the <5% attach rate of the PS2 network adapter (and even lower adoption rate when combining the limit of the HDD).

It was failings like FFXI not having break-out success early on (seems to be doing much better now, though), among others, that didn't allow them to maintain as an independent company and sent them down the road to their dissolution from the Square-Enix merger.

 

[cthellis42]

Offhand, I'm curious how you think that Lazy8s. Certainly having MORE platforms is good, but how would it make any sense to have developed for DC or Xbox before the PS2? Despite a lower attachment rate, there are still more physical BBU's out there than any other option. Both Square AND Enix have little programming experience with Dreamcast or Xbox, and preparing a MMORPG is about the biggest programming effort one can create. Not to mention both of those platforms never had Final Fantasy treatment, so all the fans of the license are on PS2. (Plus, hadn't Sega already stopped support for Dreamcast and all online features before FFXI was even out? That's certainly not something that inspires much confidence, I would say... ^_^;; GameCube was an option, but their own online support is very questionable and not at all attractive.)

FFXI already has a broader base by just encorporating PC and PS2 from the get-go (or at least close enough). SWG certainly found out that despite big plans, they couldn't get Xbox OR PS2, despite wanting to include them both. Certainly "more platforms = better," but at some point a company has to ask itself whether devoting the development time to another engine to attract more subscribers will be better than spending that effort on improving the game on existing platforms to retain more current subscribers, attract newer ones with more exposure and features, and to develop another MMORPG to replace it in a few years and compete. It took Everquest 3+ years to bring out the Macintosh version (cordoned on their own servers) and for PS2 (a much worse, cut down version that doesn't even have major updating capabilities yet for lack of a hard drive). Not thrilling examples to follow by any means.

I'm not sure how long FFXI was in development for, but it certainly went past the Dreamcast as an attractive option, and the PS2 was always the best option if any console was brought in at all. The license is at home there, the programming experience was there and nowhere else. How on earth do you think it was a mistake? Do you even think they COULD have programmed a game looking like FFXI on the Dreamcast? Considering their earlier PC FF's, I'm almost surprised they would bring it to computer. Between Square and Enix (and of course SquareEnix), they have developed a total of 0 Dreamcast games, 0 Xbox games, and 1 GameCube title--FF:CC. How was it even in question where their first MMORPG attempt would go?

 

[London Geezer]

I think the fact FF11 is on PC pretty much sums it all up, with potentially millions upon millions of users out there... So i don't think Square was too worried about "not reaching the broadest audience"... It's on PS2 because it has to, it's the eleventh commandment Square have to abide to, but i don't think they're worried about not making a profit just because they arent going to release it on Xbox and even worse, DC...

Potential PC users are so many, they pretty much swallow every other platform, including (and especially) the relatively few BBA-enabled-with-HDD PS2s.

Out of curiosity, does anyone have a number of PC users around the globe? Total users and the ones who could in theory enjoy a game like FF11 or Everquest... Is it in the almost-billion-area?

 

[Nick Laslett]

on a console that has 80 million owners. quote]

Wow, great example of selective use of facts. Are you still a mod jvd?

This has already been highlighted by other posters. FFXI has not been released in US or Europe, plus you also need a hard drive. So, the number of potential players of FFXI is more like 5 million.

Please try and use your intellect to post intelligently, rather than spewing obvious mis-information.

Wow a personal insult . Thats very nice . Is that the best you can do . Why don't you next make fun of my weight ?


How old are you ? Because your acting like a 5 year old .
If you really wanted to make me foolish you could then quote the numbers of how many actually have a broad band connector for the ps2 to allow them to play the game. Which would have reduced the numbers even more .

Please re-read my post and highlight exactly where there is a personal insult.

There was no need to insult me in return and compare me to a 5 year old.

Dictionary.com definition of insult:
1. An offensive action or remark.
2. To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness.


Analysis of Post.

Wow, great example of selective use of facts. (OPINION & SARCASM) Are you still a mod jvd? (QUESTION)

This has already been highlighted by other posters. (STATEMENT OF FACT) FFXI has not been released in US or Europe, plus you also need a hard drive. (STATEMENT OF FACT) So, the number of potential players of FFXI is more like 5 million. (OPINION)

Please try and use your intellect to post intelligently, (REQUEST) rather than spewing obvious mis-information. (REBUKE)

I did not insult your intelligence, I did not make a derogatory remark about you. Where is the insult? Taking offensive is in the eye of the beholder, please suggest an alternative way in which I could question your use of facts.

There is no need to behave so aggressively when you obviously made a post that contained contentious information about the number of PS2 owners that could play FFXI. This may have been an oversight on your part, but it appeared to be a deliberate distortion to me.

If anypart of this post has offended you, none was intended.

 

[jvd]

Please try and use your intellect to post intelligently, rather than spewing obvious mis-information

Peronal insult also carrys into calling a person bias .

 

[notAFanB]

Please try and use your intellect to post intelligently, rather than spewing obvious mis-information

Peronal insult also carrys into calling a person bias .

er..that made no sense.

 

[jvd]

Please try and use your intellect to post intelligently, rather than spewing obvious mis-information

Peronal insult also carrys into calling a person bias .

er..that made no sense.

calling a person bias is an insult. At least tot most people . How it made no sense to you I don't know. But it makes perfect sense to me. I don't know anyone who likes being called bias , or how is not a little hurt when someone calls them that .

p.s this isn't the place to get into this matter so lets drop it

 

[akira888]

When discussing the PC user base you're all forgetting something. The game requires a pretty decent comp that most don't have - a GF3/R8500 or better card is something a lot of people running Intel Extreme Slideshow don't really need. I wouldn't be suprised if the number of people with a DX8/9 level card is smaller than the number of PS2 owners, remember the only integrated video core (which the vast majority of PC's use) with DX8 accleration is the recently released ATI RS300*.

*Why isn't this called the RS200? :?

 

[Fox5]

I'd say the number of pc users worldwide capable of running modern games is under 5 million, but since they've already spent all that money on their pcs, they're more likely to spend money on games.
Oh, that 5 million number doesn't include people who buy dells and what not that come with integrated geforce 4 mx graphics, so if you include the number of prebuilt computers that can play modern games, I'd say it's arouund 20 million?(think that's a safe guess?)

 

[jvd]

I'd say the number of pc users worldwide capable of running modern games is under 5 million, but since they've already spent all that money on their pcs, they're more likely to spend money on games.
Oh, that 5 million number doesn't include people who buy dells and what not that come with integrated geforce 4 mx graphics, so if you include the number of prebuilt computers that can play modern games, I'd say it's arouund 20 million?(think that's a safe guess?)

I disagree.

I'm sure a 1.5 ghz cpu with a geforce 3 card can play this game. That hardware has been around now for what 4 years since the geforce 3 card came out. There is easily over 50 million people or more in the world that has a pc capable of playing this game .


Thats if you need at least that set up to play this game . Anyone know if it would work on a geforce 2 lvl video card ?

 

[Fox5]

Did geforce 3's really sell that well? Typically I thought a video card rarely reached 1 million sales(I think a little while back ati announced radeon sales reached 1 million, and fx's reached 100,000), so lets say 2 million sales for ati's 9500 and up series, 2 million for geforce fx, 2 million for geforce 3 level, 2 million for geforce 4 level, and 2 million for radeon 8500 level. That's a total of 10 million computers capable of playing the game, and that doesn't take into account upgraders. Lets add 10 million for geforce 2 level cards, that takes it up to 20 million. Now lets add 20 million for the dell's of the world that can play games(I think a prebuilt computer that comes with geforce 2 mx tends to be highend for prebuilt), and we get 40 million, and even that number I believe is way overstretched.
If people were as willing to upgrade PCs as they were to buy consoles, there would never be any talk about it dieing, generally consoles have to sell under 30 million total to be talked about as dieing(and under 10 million to actually die), and using that completely irrelevent analogy, I'd place the number of PCs capable of playing modern games between 10 and 30 million.
But the number of PCs capable of playing modern games can't be that high, as it takes a conscious decision to buy or build a PC capable of playing games, which would mean the person intended to actively buy PC games. With the exception of the Sims(which runs on nearly any computer), I can't recall any PC game acheiving the same kind of success as console games.

 

[cthellis42]

Thats if you need at least that set up to play this game . Anyone know if it would work on a geforce 2 lvl video card ?

Um... Yes. I mean, technically. But there's a difference between being able to play the game and being able to play the game. GF2 is pretty ass-tastic, and I wouldn't suggest a GF3 either. My personal suggestion is GF4Ti, 5600-level, 9600-level (non-SE) or better as a minimum to get anything remotely enjoyable out of it.

 

[jvd]

Well if its playable on a geforce 2 card than there is much much more systems out there that can run this .

And yes even it running at 640x480 or 800x600 will let it look better than the console form (and costs less too).

I believe about a year ago ati announced that the r300 had sold over a million . Which means with more versions of it coming out it would have sold more than that .

It be nice to know the numbers .

 

[Fox5]

Well, found some sales of PC games, not sure if they're correct.
1. The Sims - 10 million(not including expansions)
2. Half-Life - 8 million
3. Myst- 7 million
4. Chessmaster 4 million
5. Doom - 2.9 million
6. Civilization III - 2 million
7. Quake - 1.8 million
8. Age of Mythology - 1 million
9. Neverwinter Nights - 1 million
10. Return to Castle Wolfenstein - 1 million
11. Deus Ex - 500,000
12. Halo - 500,000
13. The Secret of Monkey Island 2 - 500,000

Now, I don't think this list is entirely accurate, one would think Microsoft Flight Simulator or Age of Empires would make the list, as well as Starcraft. And how about Everquest or Final Fantasy 11?(maybe they're a bit below 500,000 still?)

Even still, it is somewhat representative of how PC games sell, and the top selling games are not ones that require a decent PC at all, just a PC could be listed as their system requirements nowadays.

Compare it to consoles which look something like
1. Super Mario Bros - 40 million(it was a pack in)
2. Tetris - 33 million(pack in on gameboy)
3. Super Mario Bros 3 - 18 million(another pack in)
4. Super Mario World - 17 million(another pack in, but since I think every SNES came with this game, that seems kind of low)
5. Super Mario Land - 14 million
6. Super Mario 64 - 11 Million
The Sims would go here.
7. Super Mario Bros 2 - 10 million
8. GTA: Vice City(PS2 version) - 8.5 million
9. Harry Potter and something something(Socercer's Stone on ps1) - 8 million
10. Goldeneye - 8 million
11. Donkey Kong Country- 8 million
12. Super Mario Kart - 8 million
13. Pokemon Red/Blue - 8 million
Halflife would go here
14. Tomb Raider 2(PS1) - 8 million
15. Final Fantasy 7(Ps1) - 7.8 million
Myst would go here
16. Grand Turismo 3 - 7 million
17. Dragon Warrior 7 - 6 million

Interesting how most of the best console sellers are older games, but even still, console games this generation haven't done bad. Ps2, gamecube, and xbox all have numerous games that have broken 1 million sales, and some that have gone multimillion. The only recent PC games on that list barely attain 1 million, and would be outnumbered by any of the current consoles in million sellers.

BTW, I ripped off the list from here http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=8655 . I do recognize at least a few of those sales numbers as correct though. I also believe I saw a list recently of the top 20 selling console games of this generation and last generation, and not one dipped below 1 million copies sold.

Modern PC game choice isn't any better than consoles(about same amount of games and same amount of high profile titles), and PCs would have to have a more hardcore userbase to actually upgrade their PCs, and thus would be more willing to buy games, so the total user base of the PC(that can play current games) probably doesn't surpass that of xbox or gamecube, if it even reaches it.

 

[jvd]

I'm talking about hardware numbers .

Alot of people bought half life (i'm sure at least half) back when it did require a great system to run .


THe sims is the only exception on that list

 

[cthellis42]

Well if its playable on a geforce 2 card than there is much much more systems out there that can run this .

And yes even it running at 640x480 or 800x600 will let it look better than the console form (and costs less too).

Not on a monitor, it doesn't. And certainly not in comparison to PS2-FFXI vs. other PS2 games, and PC-FFXI versus other PC games. (Even just other MMORPGs.) The PC version needs more juice, and lags a lot, and NO ONE is satisfied with 640x480 (if they can even display at that), and very few at this point deal with 800x600. (I don't even if it kicks my FPS down into the teens for a MMORPG.) They don't compare the same way at all--both the typical viewing format and the comparative base is completely different.

But yes, I would certainly love to know what video card production figures are out there. ^_^ (Of course it's still hard to know what's what that way, since gamers who care update frequently, others ride out a card for a few years and update at the best time for them, and probably the vast bulk sits on a card for as long as possible, barely registering what upgrading would offer them.)

Well, found some sales of PC games, not sure if they're correct.

This thread was pretty much just referring to video cards, not game sales themselves--which don't reveal anything about expected computer gaming capabilities.

 

[jvd]

Not on a monitor, it doesn't. And certainly not in comparison to PS2-FFXI vs. other PS2 games, and PC-FFXI versus other PC games. (Even just other MMORPGs.) The PC version needs more juice, and lags a lot, and NO ONE is satisfied with 640x480 (if they can even display at that), and very few at this point deal with 800x600. (I don't even if it kicks my FPS down into the teens for a MMORPG.) They don't compare the same way at all--both the typical viewing format and the comparative base is completely different

Kotor looks better than the xbox version and my friend played it on a duron 1 ghz with onboard video on his nforce board with 512 megs of ram .

I have no doubt that a geforce 2 and a 1.5 ghz cpu can provide at least the same image quality than the ps2 .

 

[Fox5]

Well if its playable on a geforce 2 card than there is much much more systems out there that can run this .

And yes even it running at 640x480 or 800x600 will let it look better than the console form (and costs less too).

Not on a monitor, it doesn't. And certainly not in comparison to PS2-FFXI vs. other PS2 games, and PC-FFXI versus other PC games. (Even just other MMORPGs.) The PC version needs more juice, and lags a lot, and NO ONE is satisfied with 640x480 (if they can even display at that), and very few at this point deal with 800x600. (I don't even if it kicks my FPS down into the teens for a MMORPG.) They don't compare the same way at all--both the typical viewing format and the comparative base is completely different.

But yes, I would certainly love to know what video card production figures are out there. ^_^ (Of course it's still hard to know what's what that way, since gamers who care update frequently, others ride out a card for a few years and update at the best time for them, and probably the vast bulk sits on a card for as long as possible, barely registering what upgrading would offer them.)

Well, found some sales of PC games, not sure if they're correct.

This thread was pretty much just referring to video cards, not game sales themselves--which don't reveal anything about expected computer gaming capabilities.

But people buy video cards to play games. Even if you multiply one of the recent games on that list that sold 1 million by 10, that is still only a user base of 10 million, and generally the best selling game on a platform is a lot closer to the user base size than that. Vice City on PS2 sold 8.5 million and ps2 has a user base of around 50 million, super smash bros melee sold around 2 million, and gamecube has an installed base of around 12 million, halo for xbox sold around 3-4 million, and xbox has an installed user base of around 12 million. It seems like either PC gamers aren't buying PC games but just the hardware, or the hardware isn't selling anywhere near as well as consoles. I think it's the latter, especially since most people buying new video cards probably do so at least every 1 to 2 years, with one time purchasers tending to just use whatever comes integrated with their pc. 1 or 2 million radeon 9700 pros sold certainly doesn't mean 1 or 2 million new gamers. The amount of PCs that can play this game is nowhere near 1 billion, which I believe one person in this thread said.

"Kotor looks better than the xbox version and my friend played it on a duron 1 ghz with onboard video on his nforce board with 512 megs of ram . "

If it looked better, it was probably due to higher resolution/a crisper display at the expense of a lot of speed or some performance heavy visual effects that offer minimal increase in visual quality. Were soft shadows off? I can definetely believe it being playable at 640x480 on nforce2 video with most effects at full, as at 1280x960 with AA, AF, and soft shadows off at over 60 fps most of the time on my 9700 pro. Now, if it was the original nforce integrated video, I'd say a lot of effects were being disabled.
A geforce 3 runs halo just fine with minimal lose in visual quality, but it is doing things that are a lot less performance intensive than pixel shader 2.0.

Edit: I also have no doubt a geforce 2 with a 1.5 ghz processor can provide the same visual quality as a ps2, if the game is made to run on both. There are some exclusive games on ps2 that make good use of the massive amounts of polygons + minimal textures it can do, and those could not be 1:1 ported.(but you could lower the polygons and make better textures and probably make a better looking game)