Heads Up! 32-bit client no longer supported in Update 17 (Q1 2018)

ZOS_GinaBruno

Starting next year in Update 17, we will no longer be supporting the 32-bit client due to there being significant memory limitations with a 32-bit client, in conjunction with having the minimum system requirement of 3GB RAM. We’ve found that only a very small percentage of our players are still utilizing this client, with some of you choosing to run this client over the 64-bit client.

If you want to check to make sure you can successfully run the 64-bit client prior to this change being made, click the cog in the upper right-hand corner of the patcher, then check the box that reads “Run 64Bit Game Client.” If this doesn’t work, or if you know you’re running a 32-bit version of Windows, you’ll need to upgrade to Windows 64-bit Operating System to continue playing ESO after this change is made in Update 17.

If you play on Mac, Xbox One or PlayStation 4, you will be unaffected by this change.

We appreciate your understanding, and please let us know if you have any questions about this upcoming change.

Rohamad_Ali

Wow , good thing I have 64 . I wonder how many players this will effect and how big the improvements will be .

Moloch1514

Nice! Maybe we will see an overhaul to the game code next year! DX12 support in the future? Lol

Sigtric

Good for the game, I hope support is prepared for dealing with the OMG ESO IS NOT WORKING tickets though.

Branovices

I've been running 64-bit operating systems since like... 2003. Who is still using 32-bit systems that can even run this game? Maybe some laptops?

kyle.wilson

The game never should have been released as a 32bit system. I don't know of many computers built after 2006 that have a 32bit processor.
Making a game that can be run on an 8 year old system at launch (April 2014), made a game that was architecturally limited from the start.

Octopuss

About time to ditch obscure technology

James-Wayne

Great move long overdue

Turelus

This is going to be like the DX9 rage all over again isn't it?

It's a great move to push the game forward, but yeah I can see people getting upset about this as they'll need to upgrade their spuds.

Octopuss

Worst case, few tens of people will have to reinstall Windows if for some obscure and illogical reason they run the 32bit version.
There's nothing to upgrade, hardware-wise.

Ethoir

If someone is using a 32-bit OS, they probably don't have more than 4 GB of RAM (because it would be pointless to have more than that in a 32-bit OS). When the 32-bit client lockout happens, these players will need to buy at least an 8 GB RAM kit to go with upgrading to a 64-bit OS.

But yes, the vast majority of players are on a 64-Bit OS with more than 8 GB of RAM, so they won't be affected by this aside from the folks that like using the 32-bit client. The only benefit I can see to these people using it is that it doesn't use more than 4 gigs of their RAM, thus letting them use the remaining RAM for other tasks. Its kind of a shame that you can't tell windows to limit RAM allocation on a per-application basis.

I'm going to be telling folks complaining about this change that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Fairly simple quote to explain ZoS' PoV.

Octopuss

Not even the 64bit client uses more than 4GB of memory btw. I have never seen it use more than 3, actually.

I also think some people simply use the 32bit client under 64bit OS for some reason.

Tasear

Octopuss wrote: »

Not even the 64bit client uses more than 4GB of memory btw. I have never seen it use more than 3, actually.

I also think some people simply use the 32bit client under 64bit OS for some reason.

There was a bug few weeks back were only 32 client was working for those with permission errors. Seemed to resolve itself for me, but does make me wonder about maybe the others.

Doctordarkspawn

Turelus wrote: »

This is going to be like the DX9 rage all over again isn't it?

It's a great move to push the game forward, but yeah I can see people getting upset about this as they'll need to upgrade their spuds.

How is this pushing the game forward?

It's not like this game runs well or is stable anyway.

srfrogg23

Hrm... I have windows 64-bit, and I have 8 gb of ram, but for some reason the 64-bit ESO client gets far worse frame rates (20-40 fps on medium) and pop-in of textures than the 32-bit client (normal 60 fps on high settings) with very little pop-in.

Since it looks like I won't have a choice, anyone know what could be causing that problem with the 64 bit client, so I can start planning to upgrade?

Cpu: i5-4690
Gpu: GTX 970
Ram: 8gb
Vram: 4gb

SirAndy

About time!

JasonSilverSpring

srfrogg23 wrote: »

Hrm... I have windows 64-bit, and I have 8 gb of ram, but for some reason the 64-bit ESO client gets far worse frame rates (20-40 fps on medium) and pop-in of textures than the 32-bit client (normal 60 fps on high settings) with very little pop-in.

Since it looks like I won't have a choice, anyone know what could be causing that problem with the 64 bit client, so I can start planning to upgrade?

Cpu: i5-4690
Gpu: GTX 970
Ram: 8gb
Vram: 4gb

You're hardware should be fine. I think your issue is some software conflict or something. I don't know what, but I have not heard much about the 64 bit providing worse performance.

Acrolas

srfrogg23 wrote: »

Since it looks like I won't have a choice, anyone know what could be causing that problem with the 64 bit client, so I can start planning to upgrade?

Test your add-ons. Some of the data-compiling ones like HarvestMap and AwesomeGuildStore can be a significant drain on available resources. Basic physical memory isn't too expensive, but if you don't need every add-on enabled for every character, you can recover system resources. Also, run the ESO application on High instead of Normal priority so it receives resources ahead of background applications.

srfrogg23

JasonSilverSpring wrote: »

srfrogg23 wrote: »

Hrm... I have windows 64-bit, and I have 8 gb of ram, but for some reason the 64-bit ESO client gets far worse frame rates (20-40 fps on medium) and pop-in of textures than the 32-bit client (normal 60 fps on high settings) with very little pop-in.

Since it looks like I won't have a choice, anyone know what could be causing that problem with the 64 bit client, so I can start planning to upgrade?

Cpu: i5-4690
Gpu: GTX 970
Ram: 8gb
Vram: 4gb

You're hardware should be fine. I think your issue is some software conflict or something. I don't know what, but I have not heard much about the 64 bit providing worse performance.

Acrolas wrote: »

srfrogg23 wrote: »

Since it looks like I won't have a choice, anyone know what could be causing that problem with the 64 bit client, so I can start planning to upgrade?

Test your add-ons. Some of the data-compiling ones like HarvestMap and AwesomeGuildStore can be a significant drain on available resources. Basic physical memory isn't too expensive, but if you don't need every add-on enabled for every character, you can recover system resources. Also, run the ESO application on High instead of Normal priority so it receives resources ahead of background applications.

Thank you guys! I just got home from work and I checked my setup.

If I use the standalone ESO 64, it runs like crap, but if I use the 64 bit client through the launcher, it runs fine. Not sure why that is, but it works, so I guess I'll just quit using the ESO64 exe.

Ekadzati

@ZOS_GinaBruno - It would be interesting to hear about the percentage of people currently playing your game on 32bit clients. I'm sure it's got to be a sliver, but for those who are, it probably would drive home the reality that tech (and industries heavily reliant on it, like gaming) tend to sunset legacy support sooner rather than later because it greatly simplifies their cost of maintenance, operations, and support.

Please consider. Thank you!

Smaxx

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

How is this pushing the game forward?

It's not like this game runs well or is stable anyway.

Just one example:

With the arbitrary memory limit out of the way, the game client can use memory in a less memory saving way, e.g. by keeping things in memory, even those not in use for now (like 3D models of houses after leaving a zone).

While this might not cause a direct effect at first, it could drastically reduce load times when moving between areas, especially if you're using a slower HDD (but even SSDs).

This can also reduce complexity in resource management (again: as you don't have to be too conservative anymore), which can improve stability and performance at the same time.

OldManJim

I wonder if it's the start of increasing the housing item limits?

kaithuzar

I'm honestly worried about bigger memory leaks in this game.

altemriel

OldManJim wrote: »

I wonder if it's the start of increasing the housing item limits?

please be this true!!

altemriel

nice!!

WatchYourSixx

At this rate, I can only imagine in a few years the game will be revamped to fully utilize the capabilities of the game. I foresee a change in servers in the near future... Maybe even an engine update as well. DX12 sounds really nice ..

majulook

based on this https://netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0 going to DirectX 12 may not be a good idea for them

Octopuss

Vulkan would be a lot better, but I guess lots of work was already done on Dx12 behind the scenes.

JasonSilverSpring

I doubt DX12 or Vulkan is going to happen anytime in the next couple of years.

Malborn66

Interesting!
I never run ESO via the patcher, I have shortcuts to the ESO64 executables for Live & PTS.

So according to comments above I am getting poorer responses as a result.
Certainly the PTS was pretty bad last week, threw me off several times during the day!

I will switch over to the Patcher and configure it to run the 64-bit Version and see what this is like

Tandor

WatchYourSixx wrote: »

At this rate, I can only imagine in a few years the game will be revamped to fully utilize the capabilities of the game. I foresee a change in servers in the near future... Maybe even an engine update as well. DX12 sounds really nice ..

Yes, other than the fact that you need to install Windows 10 to run it...