Game Performance - Business Management Problem

Skoomah

Game’s performance problem is due to a multitude of factors:

1. Because of cheat programs, ZOS brought more calculations to server side vs client side. The game was originally designed for the user to carry most of the load.

2. ZOS is bad at managing server capacity. The reason why the game’s performance goes down drastically each patch is because the servers are set up for X demand but then Y demand shows up. Once the new players who don’t like the game enough leave and existing players leave from dissatisfaction, then the server can once again handle X capacity. ZOS just doesn’t want to pay the server costs.

3. ESO actually requires a stronger and stronger computer each patch. The graphics get nicer. The animations get nicer. More calculations from CP and other upgrades requires a stronger rig. XBox and PlayStation players can’t upgrade their rigs. Most PCs aren’t upgraded fast enough to keep up with the pace of changing requirements.

4. The underlying programming code for the game is not well known by the existing team because many of the original team that made the game are gone now. That’s why so many bugs linger for so long before they get addressed.

5. Resources at ZOS are limited. Shareholders want their money NOW. New content sells NOW. Bug fixes do not. But bug fixes and performance upgrades will realize long term stable growth and income. Short term gains beats long term investing.

It boils down to business management decisions. How much ZOS is willing to spend to upgrade servers, retain and invest into staff? And some decisions were made long ago and out of their hands of the current team, the underlying code was made more for client side calculations. And ZOS has no control over upgrades of gaming rigs. That’s up to the respective console companies to release stronger hardware and for PC players to shell out the cash for stronger parts.

vgabor

It's pretty much always the same with software development... upper management just don't understand engineering work...

While they willing to invest into getting the better visual designers and creatives since it easily obvious the difference by just looking at the output what they produce, but when it comes to experienced engineers they never get it why they should pay the 3-5 times higher salary of an experiences senior engineer instead of getting a cheap junior one... They just see they both do the same work and write a program which does x, but the resulting differences in efficiency and performance only will come to light in the long term when that system getting stretched to it's limits, and the well designed system able to cope with the demand while the poor one crumbles...

That's when they start realise - when it's too late do any good now - that continuously rewriting a poorly designed system later is much more expensive both in money and time then investing enough resources to get it right from beginning... and that the longer you delay your due on the technical debt, the higher the interest you will be forced to pay...

xMovingTarget

Underlying issue in gaming in general. Corporate greed.
Why sell a quality product, when it sells just as good if it is sloppy.

It's not really the companies alone who are to blame. It's the consumers just as much. Companies put up ridiculous micro transactions and so on, and the sheep as we are keep consuming it and thanking them for draining our wallets for trash.

Stop spending, and will change. But it's ridiculous to think that will happen. People want their shiny 3 minute color pallette swap mount heavily overpriced.

Jimmy_The_Fixer

I’m sure they can fix the performance problems by shoveling money into the servers, that’s how computers work, right?

xMovingTarget

Jimmy_The_Fixer wrote: »

I’m sure they can fix the performance problems by shoveling money into the servers, that’s how computers work, right?

Yes and no. Sometimes just server upgrades don't do the job.
The network code needs to be changed aswell. The amount of data between server and client needs to be smaller. Which requires heavy optimization.
The game needs to be more optimized to limit the data transfer and the calculations server-side.
They already started doing that, by making dots generally tick slower now. All in 1 sec per tick. Instead of having .5 sec ticks.
To name one example

Keledus

Players have been complaining for years, yet they still purchase the games of the greedy multi billion dollar companies and play them.

Better question for the players would be, why should they change? they're still raking in the profits even if you don't like it.
The only way something like this changes is when people stop purchasing the games and playing them.
Make their pockets hurt.

Too bad that this is just a dream which probably wont ever happen.


Tho performance wise ESO definetly ain't great but if you play around with the settings abit it's not all that horrible
could definetly be worse than it is right now. From what i've noticed draw distance and lots of players in the same area are fps killers.

Elsonso

xMovingTarget wrote: »

Jimmy_The_Fixer wrote: »

I’m sure they can fix the performance problems by shoveling money into the servers, that’s how computers work, right?

Yes and no. Sometimes just server upgrades don't do the job.
The network code needs to be changed aswell. The amount of data between server and client needs to be smaller. Which requires heavy optimization.
The game needs to be more optimized to limit the data transfer and the calculations server-side.
They already started doing that, by making dots generally tick slower now. All in 1 sec per tick. Instead of having .5 sec ticks.
To name one example

I read that quote you responded to as being sarcastic.

ghastley

Let's not forget the basic decision to have have consolidated megaservers, versus smaller, more distributed ones. Fewer server locations means more population in each, giving a better gaming experience for the players, up to the point of saturation, when it gets worse. It also sets the system up for the introduction of lag from internet latency, which is completely outside ZOS's control, but it conversely provides a common path that becomes favoured by the router network, because of the consistent traffic. There's an upside and a downside to any decision, and what was right at the beginning, may no longer be right after several years.

MJallday

Skoomah wrote: »

Game’s performance problem is due to a multitude of factors:

1. Because of cheat programs, ZOS brought more calculations to server side vs client side. The game was originally designed for the user to carry most of the load.

2. ZOS is bad at managing server capacity. The reason why the game’s performance goes down drastically each patch is because the servers are set up for X demand but then Y demand shows up. Once the new players who don’t like the game enough leave and existing players leave from dissatisfaction, then the server can once again handle X capacity. ZOS just doesn’t want to pay the server costs.

3. ESO actually requires a stronger and stronger computer each patch. The graphics get nicer. The animations get nicer. More calculations from CP and other upgrades requires a stronger rig. XBox and PlayStation players can’t upgrade their rigs. Most PCs aren’t upgraded fast enough to keep up with the pace of changing requirements.

4. The underlying programming code for the game is not well known by the existing team because many of the original team that made the game are gone now. That’s why so many bugs linger for so long before they get addressed.

5. Resources at ZOS are limited. Shareholders want their money NOW. New content sells NOW. Bug fixes do not. But bug fixes and performance upgrades will realize long term stable growth and income. Short term gains beats long term investing.

It boils down to business management decisions. How much ZOS is willing to spend to upgrade servers, retain and invest into staff? And some decisions were made long ago and out of their hands of the current team, the underlying code was made more for client side calculations. And ZOS has no control over upgrades of gaming rigs. That’s up to the respective console companies to release stronger hardware and for PC players to shell out the cash for stronger parts.

1. That isnt entirely accurate is it? The reason they bought stuff to server side is because it needed to be handled server side because of the MMO elements. Most games are designed to put some load (where it can) onto the client - indeed update 24/5 will do some of that
2. Thats an assumption. What proof do you have that any server capacity is being hit? you should know that Demand capacity is different from server capacity. You cannot assert that ZOS doesnt want to pay server costs, you have no evidence of this and i doubt its accurate given the huge amount of money ZOS generates! servers wont help this game. optimizing code and reduction of game calculations will.
3. This is true for most, if not every peice of software ever written. ESO isnt special in this respect
4. You cannot make this assertion. How do you know its not written in a .NET language which cannot easily be picked up - or that the code is sufficiently annotated.? thats a bit disrespectful for the developers who work hard.
5. I didnt realise you were the HR manager at ZOS and that you'd done an impact on dev resources? is there any evidence to suggest theres no developers? theres certainly an awful lot of them on linkedin! Also,most shareholders want dividends on an annual payout, not "NOW". You are correct in that new content sells "Now" and that bug fixes are a cost to sustain client levels, but with 13m monthly users - id suggest it isnt exactly on their priority list - which is bourne out by the fact you might get some updates in Q1 2020

the point of my post is not to shoot your assertations down, and actually i agree there is an issue and its with the "strategy / roadmap" - everything else is a by-product - but some of the things youve said cannot possibly be evidenced.

Skoomah

MJallday wrote: »

Skoomah wrote: »

Game’s performance problem is due to a multitude of factors:

1. Because of cheat programs, ZOS brought more calculations to server side vs client side. The game was originally designed for the user to carry most of the load.

2. ZOS is bad at managing server capacity. The reason why the game’s performance goes down drastically each patch is because the servers are set up for X demand but then Y demand shows up. Once the new players who don’t like the game enough leave and existing players leave from dissatisfaction, then the server can once again handle X capacity. ZOS just doesn’t want to pay the server costs.

3. ESO actually requires a stronger and stronger computer each patch. The graphics get nicer. The animations get nicer. More calculations from CP and other upgrades requires a stronger rig. XBox and PlayStation players can’t upgrade their rigs. Most PCs aren’t upgraded fast enough to keep up with the pace of changing requirements.

4. The underlying programming code for the game is not well known by the existing team because many of the original team that made the game are gone now. That’s why so many bugs linger for so long before they get addressed.

5. Resources at ZOS are limited. Shareholders want their money NOW. New content sells NOW. Bug fixes do not. But bug fixes and performance upgrades will realize long term stable growth and income. Short term gains beats long term investing.

It boils down to business management decisions. How much ZOS is willing to spend to upgrade servers, retain and invest into staff? And some decisions were made long ago and out of their hands of the current team, the underlying code was made more for client side calculations. And ZOS has no control over upgrades of gaming rigs. That’s up to the respective console companies to release stronger hardware and for PC players to shell out the cash for stronger parts.

1. That isnt entirely accurate is it? The reason they bought stuff to server side is because it needed to be handled server side because of the MMO elements. Most games are designed to put some load (where it can) onto the client - indeed update 24/5 will do some of that
2. Thats an assumption. What proof do you have that any server capacity is being hit? you should know that Demand capacity is different from server capacity. You cannot assert that ZOS doesnt want to pay server costs, you have no evidence of this and i doubt its accurate given the huge amount of money ZOS generates! servers wont help this game. optimizing code and reduction of game calculations will.
3. This is true for most, if not every peice of software ever written. ESO isnt special in this respect
4. You cannot make this assertion. How do you know its not written in a .NET language which cannot easily be picked up - or that the code is sufficiently annotated.? thats a bit disrespectful for the developers who work hard.
5. I didnt realise you were the HR manager at ZOS and that you'd done an impact on dev resources? is there any evidence to suggest theres no developers? theres certainly an awful lot of them on linkedin! Also,most shareholders want dividends on an annual payout, not "NOW". You are correct in that new content sells "Now" and that bug fixes are a cost to sustain client levels, but with 13m monthly users - id suggest it isnt exactly on their priority list - which is bourne out by the fact you might get some updates in Q1 2020

the point of my post is not to shoot your assertations down, and actually i agree there is an issue and its with the "strategy / roadmap" - everything else is a by-product - but some of the things youve said cannot possibly be evidenced.

1. Sure is. Cheating was a big problem. May 2016 example...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KbEtN24VS4E

2. Right. It’s a combination of code and servers. There is definitely a prime time during the day that when enough people are logged on, the game performance goes to crap.

3. I was just making the obvious observation that hardware makes a difference in game performance. There are factors out of ZOS’s hands. One factor out of a multitude of factors that contributes to the bad game performance.

4. It’s been shown over and over again that the coders make changes to skills, passives, etc. and the cascading and unintended effects show up everywhere. I’m not going to go into specifics. Just bring up the hundreds of angry threads about broken stuff they have not gotten around to fixing.

5. The game had a terrible launch, had to drop their subscription model, and came back from the dead with One Tamriel. Estimates range from 5-7 years of development time before the game was launched. I can see why investors wanted to finally make money off their investment.

The game was not initially well received...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov3B26h12C4

And years later... the inability to recoup the initial investment lead to this reality (7:20 minute mark of the video)...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6JOFgpFlLXM

Grimm13

xMovingTarget wrote: »

Underlying issue in gaming in general. Corporate greed.
Why sell a quality product, when it sells just as good if it is sloppy.

It's not really the companies alone who are to blame. It's the consumers just as much. Companies put up ridiculous micro transactions and so on, and the sheep as we are keep consuming it and thanking them for draining our wallets for trash.

Stop spending, and will change. But it's ridiculous to think that will happen. People want their shiny 3 minute color palette swap mount heavily overpriced.

I see a good portion of the micro transaction problem being from younger players. Many parents don't play games and do a quick look if they even do look, so they are not teaching responsible purchasing in games. They just give little Johnnie his allowance and it gets spent any which way. Years later the parents say why is little Johnnie so screwed up financially, not taking the blame as they did nothing to lay the ground work.

Of course there's a number of adults that fall victim to the micro-transaction since they tell themselves it's just x amount of $.
Yet it all adds up. Soon they have not money for the house or utilities and not knowing where the money went.

I taught my son about all the costs with games and how to budget. He has a long term goal to save towards in upgrading equipment and does a good job of limiting his spending. What really helps is a re-loadable CC which you only have a limited amount of money on instead of full access to your bank account or credit line.

You are correct, you have to stop spending to get the changes when companies refuse to make the changes. These same people that keep spending then complain how bad things are yet they do not do what is necessary to get the changes. In the long run they quit and run off to find the next shinny.

Grimm13

ghastley wrote: »

Let's not forget the basic decision to have have consolidated megaservers, versus smaller, more distributed ones. Fewer server locations means more population in each, giving a better gaming experience for the players, up to the point of saturation, when it gets worse. It also sets the system up for the introduction of lag from internet latency, which is completely outside ZOS's control, but it conversely provides a common path that becomes favoured by the router network, because of the consistent traffic. There's an upside and a downside to any decision, and what was right at the beginning, may no longer be right after several years.

I always wonder about the troubles on the EU server. Is it worse because of so many different countries and the internet laws of where the server is located.