| outlawauron said: I'm saying that it's more than just that. The design philosophy has been handcuffed by the PS3 specs, resulting in smaller zones, less complex battles, and simple instances. Stormblood is already proof that they're expanding the scope of the game and enhancing the design off of that. |
Of course it has been (primarily because of RAM), but 4.0 has also shown that their 'content over tech' (and subsequent sticking to their general technical base) continues even when they have room to do effectively anything they reasonably want. They just cut an entire generation off their mandatory optimization minimum, and they've only capitalised on a fraction of it (in-game tech wise). As i said, that they think a Switch version is even worth discussing should highlight how much breathing room they have left. SE know their game a lot better than we do, and they clearly think the Switch's capabilities are within the range of their planned improvements for the next few years.
Their biggest point of focus for improvement right now appears to be scale, and that's predominantly a server issue now. They're why we can't even have a basic glamour list; the way they handle inventory exchanges between zones makes it a daunting task (at present you effectively have a separate inventory for every area, and the server fills it with whatever it knows you had in the last one). As the servers continue to be improved, we should see the game's scale increase without much effect on minimum specs. I think we'll see them abandon the DX9 version relatively soon (and in line with that a jump from 3GB of RAM to 4GB), but that's about it for a while. A Switch version would probably continue to be fine until that minimum on PC reaches 6 to 8GB.
