Population shrinking, PLEASE do something

OtarTheMad

Aurielle wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

This MMO is two years older than ESO.



A world boss fight at 4:30pm EST on a weekday... (open the image in a new tab, enjoy counting the number of players on the screen -- I definitely would have been booted to login with the same numbers on ESO).

@Aurielle

IIRC, GW2 is a good game, but its graphics and other aspects are lower quality. This is why the minimum requirements are notably less from the OS to the CPU.

They also have smaller servers. The server design is interesting, but it is smaller.

As I said, it's a good game but of lower quality overall. As such, it is not a good comparison. Their overworld design and performance are better than what we have in Cyrodiil.

This is a discussion about game population decline, not graphics. I posted a screenshot taken this week featuring more players in one location working towards a common goal than I’ve seen in ESO in a very, very, very long time. A lot of people here like to say that new MMOs like T&L are seeing significantly higher player numbers than ESO simply because they’re new MMOs. GW2 is older than ESO, however, and feels so much more alive.

How big is the map for GW2? I am just genuinely curious because maybe some of the difference is just the number of instances and map size since ESO just has so many zones and things to do. Maybe GW2 has the same but idk.

Elsonso

Aurielle wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

This MMO is two years older than ESO.

A world boss fight at 4:30pm EST on a weekday... (open the image in a new tab, enjoy counting the number of players on the screen -- I definitely would have been booted to login with the same numbers on ESO).

@Aurielle

IIRC, GW2 is a good game, but its graphics and other aspects are lower quality. This is why the minimum requirements are notably less from the OS to the CPU.

They also have smaller servers. The server design is interesting, but it is smaller.

As I said, it's a good game but of lower quality overall. As such, it is not a good comparison. Their overworld design and performance are better than what we have in Cyrodiil.

This is a discussion about game population decline, not graphics. I posted a screenshot taken this week featuring more players in one location working towards a common goal than I’ve seen in ESO in a very, very, very long time. A lot of people here like to say that new MMOs like T&L are seeing significantly higher player numbers than ESO simply because they’re new MMOs. GW2 is older than ESO, however, and feels so much more alive.

I am sure you are aware that ZOS limits the number of people we see. You may remember a couple years when the Anniversary caused Vulkhel Guard to crawl to a stop because they allowed too many players into the area around the Chef. The graphical demands of ESO are higher than that of GW2, so even if the ESO server can handle that many people in the area, the client may not be able to. Either way, I expect that ZOS has a cap that is lower than what you are seeing on GW2.

A more appropriate example for comparison will be T&L. It is using Unreal 4 rather than the GW2 custom engine.

Jaraal

OtarTheMad wrote: »

Auroan wrote: »

TLDR: The population is indeed decreasing, but it's primarily due to technical limitations and game balancing.

Yes, the population is shrinking. According to Steam, it's not even in the Top 100 anymore:

Source: https://store.steampowered.com/charts/mostplayed

When looking at the alternative Steam analytics, ESO has averaged around 10.5k players per month for the past 3 month. ESO hasn't averaged 10k monthly players since 2018, but the difference was that was a record. This time it's regression.

Source: https://steamcharts.com/app/306130

Contrary to what others may say, the games population is decreasing primarily because of technical limitations and balancing.

It's not because of lack of new features, or ZOS not listening, or anything like that. ZOS listens to the player base, and they've introduced a ton of new features over the years. We wanted Dragons, they gave us Dragon Bones DLC. We wanted Housing, we got Housing. We wanted Trasmog, they gave us Transmog. We wanted Spell Crafting, they gave us Grimoires. We wanted Account-Wide Achievements, they gave us Account-Wide Achievements. People will bash ZOS a lot about not listening to the players (I know I'm guilty of doing it at one point or another), amongst other things, but they really listen and they've done a ton of stuff for the game. That's why, even though it's failing, it's still the best MMO on the market, IMO.

I played Throne and Liberty and other new MMO's. They're all fine and dandy, but you'll notice very quickly the QOL and accessibility differences between them and ESO. ESO just has more to offer and usually does it better.
Using Throne and Liberty as an example since that's the most recent one I've played and is currently the top dog on Steam (most of them might be bots though, like Lost Ark):
-Throne and Liberty doesn't have a Transmog system, it has a Costume system via microtransactions. No MMO on the market has as good of a Transmog system as ESO.
-Throne and Liberty dungeons and raids are kitty level easy. They're quick and the final bosses only have like, two actual mechanics. Any end game raider in ESO will go there and realize how brain dead easy that content is. That's the same with pretty much every other MMO I've played as well. ESO sets a different type of standard when it comes to difficulty during end game group content.
-Guilds are limited to around 80 players where ESO gives 500.
-The story is forgettable and unengaging as compared to ESO's (which I admit has struggled recently).
-Stealing via Thieves Guild, Assassination's via Dark Brotherhood, Killing NPC's, etc. doesn't even exist in Throne and Liberty.
-Throne and Liberty's housing system, if you can even call it that, pales in comparison to ESO's.
-All character are tied to one account, so you don't need to add each individual character to your friends list, guild list, etc.

The list goes on. But ultimately, people tend to forget just how much ZOS has actually done with the game and how much it offers as far as content and quality of life compared to other games out (provided the game has also been out for 12+ years).

This is why I say their technical limitations and balancing are causing their downfall, not other reasons. The biggest backlashes that've caused the biggest upset to their player base numbers have always come from ZOS' balancing team and ZOS' game breaking bugs. The balancing team have tried to change how the core gameplay works on multiple occasions, trying to add channel times to shield casting, to trying to eliminate LA weaving, you name it. They've received very harsh backlash from it and proven they really don't know how to handle it because they want to be friendly to casual MMO players that've played nothing but Tab-Target GCD MMO's their entire life, but also realize that ESO stands out for a majority of players as having fun, action packed combat, while also realizing they have an Elder Scrolls title on their hands, which has a specific type of gameplay/combat to it that they have to adhere to.

The bugs have gotten tiring for a lot of people as well. DC'ing constantly, enemies getting stuck, enemies resetting, desyncs, etc. You name it. Some updates suffer a lot worse then others, and it really hurt their player base because that's the end game for a lot of players. That's why, as I explained earlier, ZOS listened to their player base and said, you know what, okay, no more 4 story updates a year, no more year long story, we're going to have a dedicated DLC as a QoL DLC to address these technical issues because we're losing players over how buggy and unbalanced our game is.

My personal opinion, it has to do with the fact that they're using the Hero Engine. There are only 3 known games that utilize the Hero Engine:
-SWTOR
-ESO
-Magic to Master (not out yet)

Most academic facilities will teach their students Unity or Unreal Engine (mine taught Unity). Most studios build their own engine to avoid paying royalties. ZOS has access to Havok and could've used it, but Havok back in 2012 wouldn't have been able to handle ESO. Skyrim couldn't even having more then 4 light sources, or 3 shadow casting objects without the game crashing. But they chose the Hero Engine out of all options probably due to finances/royalties. This is probably the source to all their issues because they're on a technically limited engine that hasn't been updated since no one even knows when. If they lose employees and have to hire new ones, they have to essentially relearn a brand new engine that's proven to be not so great, and ultimately, when you tie everything together, it creates a mess.

My take: If ESO pulled a FF14 and recreated itself on UE5, which is arguably the best and most used Engine on the market, and had employees that knew how to use UE5 (which is much more likely then finding individuals who know how to use the Hero Engine), you'd have a visually great MMO with no bugs. Then the only issue ESO would be facing is balancing. And that's pretty much the only thing that ZOS actually needs to listen to their community for in order to fix (I hear their balancing team hates feedback and doesn't listen to it).

Thanks for listening to my Ted Talk.

A lot of good points here and I find that I agree with but I do think that old consoles plays into it as well as Hero Engine. If PC can handle XYZ and new consoles can handle XYZ but old ones can’t then ZOS can’t do it. It’s hurting them and maybe they are a bit blind to it or maybe they have a contract they have to fulfill idk but that Matt Firor interview I posted in this thread or another was only from Necrom.

It doesn’t help that right now you have a ton of games coming out that are fun, so that pulls people away but I think that’s the new normal, having a lot of games to choose from. I’d like to see the difference between ESO now and ESO without old consoles. I’d be curious how much more they could do.

Well they did sunset support for 32 bit Windows PCs shortly after the Morrowind DLC dropped. So they will continue to increase the hardware requirements as they see fit. And it's only logical that at some point they will cease coding around the limitations of the 1st gen consoles. They have the numbers on who plays on what rigs, and perhaps when the number of 1st gen console users drops to a certain point, they will raise the hardware requirements accordingly. But, without them sharing a roadmap with us, we can only speculate.

Amottica

Aurielle wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

This MMO is two years older than ESO.



A world boss fight at 4:30pm EST on a weekday... (open the image in a new tab, enjoy counting the number of players on the screen -- I definitely would have been booted to login with the same numbers on ESO).

@Aurielle

IIRC, GW2 is a good game, but its graphics and other aspects are lower quality. This is why the minimum requirements are notably less from the OS to the CPU.

They also have smaller servers. The server design is interesting, but it is smaller.

As I said, it's a good game but of lower quality overall. As such, it is not a good comparison. Their overworld design and performance are better than what we have in Cyrodiil.

This is a discussion about game population decline, not graphics. I posted a screenshot taken this week featuring more players in one location working towards a common goal than I’ve seen in ESO in a very, very, very long time. A lot of people here like to say that new MMOs like T&L are seeing significantly higher player numbers than ESO simply because they’re new MMOs. GW2 is older than ESO, however, and feels so much more alive.

It is still extremely irrelevent.

Those fights in GW2 are scheduled. People know exactly when they happen, and they happen a lot less frequently than WB fights in ESO. GW2 also has items people can use to remind them the fight is about to start and teleport them to the fight location.

Further, those fights in GW2 require a large number of players. In ESO I have soloed a lot of the DLC WBs in ESO which no one can do with those bosses in GW2.

Oh wait, those bosses also drop more loot, which drives players to do them. Granted, my legendary gear in GW2 came from raiding and PvP, which is better than what those bosses drop.

So nope. It does not reflect game population. If anything, that SS shows how weak our WBs are in ESO. I agree. they need to make WB fights more challenging, make them worthy, and increase loot they drop.

fizzylu

OtarTheMad wrote: »

How big is the map for GW2? I am just genuinely curious because maybe some of the difference is just the number of instances and map size since ESO just has so many zones and things to do. Maybe GW2 has the same but idk.

GW2 also has many zones and it also has different instances depending on how many players are in one zone. There's even a prompt that will pop up if your instance of the current zone you're in is emptying out and closing down to move you over to a more populated one.

I do know GW2 has a higher player cap per instance, but it also doesn't use a megaserver like ESO.... and from my experience playing both games, I'd say a single GW2 server usually feels just as populated as the entire NA megaserver of ESO. Take what you will from that....
And I see a lot of people here bringing up the graphics of ESO, even slightly insinuating ESO is better because of them, and even commenting on how the higher graphic requirements can also be why ESO doesn't perform as well (as if that's a good excuse).... which is kind of the point, isn't it? What good is graphics if the game runs like garbage and results in a world that feels dead?

The devs behind GW2 knew how to create a MMO of actual quality because even without the "better graphics" or a megaserver.... that games physics, the existence of cloaks, flowing robes/dresses, not even just swimming but underwater combat, flying, and so much more with close to zero performance or connection issues, put GW2 miles ahead of ESO in terms of overall quality and life within the game.

Amottica

OtarTheMad wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

This MMO is two years older than ESO.



A world boss fight at 4:30pm EST on a weekday... (open the image in a new tab, enjoy counting the number of players on the screen -- I definitely would have been booted to login with the same numbers on ESO).

@Aurielle

IIRC, GW2 is a good game, but its graphics and other aspects are lower quality. This is why the minimum requirements are notably less from the OS to the CPU.

They also have smaller servers. The server design is interesting, but it is smaller.

As I said, it's a good game but of lower quality overall. As such, it is not a good comparison. Their overworld design and performance are better than what we have in Cyrodiil.

This is a discussion about game population decline, not graphics. I posted a screenshot taken this week featuring more players in one location working towards a common goal than I’ve seen in ESO in a very, very, very long time. A lot of people here like to say that new MMOs like T&L are seeing significantly higher player numbers than ESO simply because they’re new MMOs. GW2 is older than ESO, however, and feels so much more alive.

How big is the map for GW2? I am just genuinely curious because maybe some of the difference is just the number of instances and map size since ESO just has so many zones and things to do. Maybe GW2 has the same but idk.

@OtarTheMad

It is not the map size or anything like that. A fight like that is due to them being scheduled at a specific time, and many players have purchased tokens they can use to port to the fight location when it is time.

The fights are a much bigger deal than the little WBs in ESO, so they require more people to take them down. Some require some coordination between three different locations. They also have good drops, making them good for newer players to get mats.

I have felt that ESO lacks serious WBs that require groups to take down.

Below is an image of what the token can do. You can see there is one fight about to start and two coming up. Clicking on any of them ports you to the location.



This is from a website showing all the times one fight will occur over the next ~22 hours. It gives a countdown to each occurrence that happens every 2 hours.



People can plan for it. They must plan for it. We have nothing like it, so the population in the previous image is irrelevant for comparing game populations.

Arrow312

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

This MMO is two years older than ESO.



A world boss fight at 4:30pm EST on a weekday... (open the image in a new tab, enjoy counting the number of players on the screen -- I definitely would have been booted to login with the same numbers on ESO).

Stuff like this wouldnt be possible in ESO.

I had a huge discussion going on in craglorn the other day when i was complaining how dead it was, there were like 10 people running arround in belkarth at friday evening 7pm prime time and some dude came up with excuses like yeah its holliday time, people work, people go out people do these and these...

Okay cool but why these deadness is only in eso and other games perform so much better?

TOP 3 excuses why ESO is empty from people who cant believe the sad truth

1.) It is holiday not many online

2.) It is to early they will come later (work,school whatever) around 7-9 pm

3.) Many on this server have a different Timezone and joins later (special on EU)

Special

4.) It is spring/summer/fall/winter people go outside

Why others games do better? Maybe they are newer and dont have the same events over the years....

Aurielle

Arrow312 wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

This MMO is two years older than ESO.



A world boss fight at 4:30pm EST on a weekday... (open the image in a new tab, enjoy counting the number of players on the screen -- I definitely would have been booted to login with the same numbers on ESO).

Stuff like this wouldnt be possible in ESO.

I had a huge discussion going on in craglorn the other day when i was complaining how dead it was, there were like 10 people running arround in belkarth at friday evening 7pm prime time and some dude came up with excuses like yeah its holliday time, people work, people go out people do these and these...

Okay cool but why these deadness is only in eso and other games perform so much better?

TOP 3 excuses why ESO is empty from people who cant believe the sad truth

1.) It is holiday not many online

2.) It is to early they will come later (work,school whatever) around 7-9 pm

3.) Many on this server have a different Timezone and joins later (special on EU)

Special

4.) It is spring/summer/fall/winter people go outside

Why others games do better? Maybe they are newer and dont have the same events over the years....

You can add a fifth one:

5.) ESO doesn’t have any events that bring people together, so it’s irrelevant to post screenshots from other games where there are hundreds of players clustered around an event boss during the middle of the day on a weekday.

You can even add a sixth:

6.) ESO has good graphics ( ), so ZOS has to severely limit the number of players that can occupy the same server shard for performance reasons.

Arrow312

5.) ESO doesn’t have any events that bring people together, so it’s irrelevant to post screenshots from other games where there are hundreds of players clustered around an event boss during the middle of the day on a weekday.

-Tbf ESO had some sort of this events when Carglorn was for groups but they decided to change it.

Imo the game is to focus on "casuals" today, things like Brokensoul and the Open World killed group play. Because you can do to much things solo. It should be hard or nearly impossible to do group content solo but nowadays you can do nearly everything solo. So the MMO effect step more and more away.

I read some threads in german forum where people complained that they couldnt do things solo and need others....thats weird for me because you play an MMO

MISTFORMBZZZ

Aurielle wrote: »

Arrow312 wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

This MMO is two years older than ESO.



A world boss fight at 4:30pm EST on a weekday... (open the image in a new tab, enjoy counting the number of players on the screen -- I definitely would have been booted to login with the same numbers on ESO).

Stuff like this wouldnt be possible in ESO.

I had a huge discussion going on in craglorn the other day when i was complaining how dead it was, there were like 10 people running arround in belkarth at friday evening 7pm prime time and some dude came up with excuses like yeah its holliday time, people work, people go out people do these and these...

Okay cool but why these deadness is only in eso and other games perform so much better?

TOP 3 excuses why ESO is empty from people who cant believe the sad truth

1.) It is holiday not many online

2.) It is to early they will come later (work,school whatever) around 7-9 pm

3.) Many on this server have a different Timezone and joins later (special on EU)

Special

4.) It is spring/summer/fall/winter people go outside

Why others games do better? Maybe they are newer and dont have the same events over the years....

You can add a fifth one:

5.) ESO doesn’t have any events that bring people together, so it’s irrelevant to post screenshots from other games where there are hundreds of players clustered around an event boss during the middle of the day on a weekday.

You can even add a sixth:

6.) ESO has good graphics ( ), so ZOS has to severely limit the number of players that can occupy the same server shard for performance reasons.

Its not irrelevant to compare games and also the graphics are looking good - well im guessing this is subjective

Aurielle

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

Arrow312 wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

This MMO is two years older than ESO.



A world boss fight at 4:30pm EST on a weekday... (open the image in a new tab, enjoy counting the number of players on the screen -- I definitely would have been booted to login with the same numbers on ESO).

Stuff like this wouldnt be possible in ESO.

I had a huge discussion going on in craglorn the other day when i was complaining how dead it was, there were like 10 people running arround in belkarth at friday evening 7pm prime time and some dude came up with excuses like yeah its holliday time, people work, people go out people do these and these...

Okay cool but why these deadness is only in eso and other games perform so much better?

TOP 3 excuses why ESO is empty from people who cant believe the sad truth

1.) It is holiday not many online

2.) It is to early they will come later (work,school whatever) around 7-9 pm

3.) Many on this server have a different Timezone and joins later (special on EU)

Special

4.) It is spring/summer/fall/winter people go outside

Why others games do better? Maybe they are newer and dont have the same events over the years....

You can add a fifth one:

5.) ESO doesn’t have any events that bring people together, so it’s irrelevant to post screenshots from other games where there are hundreds of players clustered around an event boss during the middle of the day on a weekday.

You can even add a sixth:

6.) ESO has good graphics ( ), so ZOS has to severely limit the number of players that can occupy the same server shard for performance reasons.

Its not irrelevant to compare games and also the graphics are looking good - well im guessing this is subjective

Oh, I agree. Was just listing some additional amusing excuses people come up with to explain why ESO feels so empty compared to other MMORPGs.

MISTFORMBZZZ

Aurielle wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

Arrow312 wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

This MMO is two years older than ESO.



A world boss fight at 4:30pm EST on a weekday... (open the image in a new tab, enjoy counting the number of players on the screen -- I definitely would have been booted to login with the same numbers on ESO).

Stuff like this wouldnt be possible in ESO.

I had a huge discussion going on in craglorn the other day when i was complaining how dead it was, there were like 10 people running arround in belkarth at friday evening 7pm prime time and some dude came up with excuses like yeah its holliday time, people work, people go out people do these and these...

Okay cool but why these deadness is only in eso and other games perform so much better?

TOP 3 excuses why ESO is empty from people who cant believe the sad truth

1.) It is holiday not many online

2.) It is to early they will come later (work,school whatever) around 7-9 pm

3.) Many on this server have a different Timezone and joins later (special on EU)

Special

4.) It is spring/summer/fall/winter people go outside

Why others games do better? Maybe they are newer and dont have the same events over the years....

You can add a fifth one:

5.) ESO doesn’t have any events that bring people together, so it’s irrelevant to post screenshots from other games where there are hundreds of players clustered around an event boss during the middle of the day on a weekday.

You can even add a sixth:

6.) ESO has good graphics ( ), so ZOS has to severely limit the number of players that can occupy the same server shard for performance reasons.

Its not irrelevant to compare games and also the graphics are looking good - well im guessing this is subjective

Oh, I agree. Was just listing some additional amusing excuses people come up with to explain why ESO feels so empty compared to other MMORPGs.

Oh sorry then i missunderstood you ^^

Elsonso

Jaraal wrote: »

Well they did sunset support for 32 bit Windows PCs shortly after the Morrowind DLC dropped. So they will continue to increase the hardware requirements as they see fit. And it's only logical that at some point they will cease coding around the limitations of the 1st gen consoles. They have the numbers on who plays on what rigs, and perhaps when the number of 1st gen console users drops to a certain point, they will raise the hardware requirements accordingly. But, without them sharing a roadmap with us, we can only speculate.

At this point, I don't expect they have such a roadmap. They have said a lot of people are still playing on older consoles, and we can probably add older PCs to that. I don't see that there is a business reason to chase them off, or they would be doing it. They chased PC players off older hardware more than once, so we know they are willing to do it when they can.

They can keep rearranging the luggage to fit inside the older consoles for a while longer.

fizzylu wrote: »

And I see a lot of people here bringing up the graphics of ESO, even slightly insinuating ESO is better because of them, and even commenting on how the higher graphic requirements can also be why ESO doesn't perform as well (as if that's a good excuse).... which is kind of the point, isn't it? What good is graphics if the game runs like garbage

That is the larger point. However, if we are going to talk about number of people on the screen in a game with graphics that are not as good, then better graphics, even if they aren't state of the art, are going to be a talking point. To counter that mentality, graphics has to be removed as an excuse by comparing to a game that has much better graphics and performs better with more people on the screen.

Taril

OtarTheMad wrote: »

How big is the map for GW2? I am just genuinely curious because maybe some of the difference is just the number of instances and map size since ESO just has so many zones and things to do. Maybe GW2 has the same but idk.

GW2 has a lot of different zones and plenty of world events (That in some cases span across entire zones)

GW2 also often has times where there is simply a lack of people participating in world bosses. Especially for older premium content (People get access to all of the base game when they get the game and they get the latest story stuff for free for logging on while it's current - But any non-base story content before the newest stuff is locked behind paywalls and there's no ESO+ style "Access everything" deals)

So yeah, while you do get plenty of times where you get a zone full of people working towards a world boss, you also get plenty of times where there's no-one active in that zone while a WB is up.

Having things occur on a set timer and being non-soloable errs towards having many people show up for WB's (As well as it being the main form of end-game content, with dungeons/raids being far less prevalent). But it's not infallible.

ESO tends to have more focus on instanced gameplay. Which is likely why I often see tons of people standing around at every Undaunted Enclave while WB's are generally barren outside a couple of people who actually care to do a daily.

This is a similar thing that happened with WoW too. When they introduced the Dungeon Finder there was a dramatic decline in the number of people bothering to do world bosses, group quests and general overworld stuff and a far higher number of people standing around in cities sitting in queues for instanced content...

It is also true of FFXIV. Overworlds are completely dead outside people questing in whatever new zone or doing dailies. People standing around in cities in DF queues are very high because 95% of relevant content is instanced stuff accessed via DF.

fizzylu

Elsonso wrote: »

That is the larger point. However, if we are going to talk about number of people on the screen in a game with graphics that are not as good, then better graphics, even if they aren't state of the art, are going to be a talking point. To counter that mentality, graphics has to be removed as an excuse by comparing to a game that has much better graphics and performs better with more people on the screen.

See, I don't know if I even agree with all of the "ESO has better graphics" point to begin with as an excuse for less players being on a screen.... because yes, ESO 100% has higher graphic requirements than GW2.... but like I touched upon, the creators of GW2 were actively trying (and knew how) to design a game that could play on close to anything AND function as a MMO smoothly (huge openworld fights and events). And that's the thing, while it has a simpler world design (not as much foliage and etc) and not as detailed textures.... again, like I already mentioned previously, it has things ESO doesn't (decent physics, non static armor/robes, swimming, flying, player filled instances, etc). There is so much that game can do and handle that ESO cannot, and I feel things like physics, my robe flowing behind me as I run, and the experience of being able to stop a huge monster in the middle of the world with an army of players make for some pretty good graphics/visuals.

And the big one.... WoW, to many peoples surprise I've realized, actually has higher PC rig requirements than ESO. Now that is 100% a game where you have tons of players on a screen at a time despite it's "better", since that's the word people like to use here, graphics. Now, obviously WoW is much older and once upon a time it did have lower requirements.... but as years have gone by, that game has evolved, and unlike GW2 it has yet and might not ever include graphic setting options like "lower the detail of other player models". What's crazy though, is that despite that.... I lag less in WoW when there's more players than ESO can ever have on my screen at one time in just as luscious, detailed zones featuring hand-drawn textures and shading that could put artwork like the Mona Lisa to shame, and topped off with even better VFX and animations than ESO has.

Which is why, I don't think it's about graphics at all.... I'd more readily say that the speculated small instance size exists because of how much is constantly being calculated by the servers (proc sets, high APM, the questionable amount of things that are server side and not client) and the simple fact that ESO wasn't built to handle it's own gameplay design. I mean, seriously.... even capes were originally axed partially because their physics were causing too much stress on the server (btw, WoW and GW2 both handle capes just fine).

I don't know why it seems people just can't admit that maybe ESO simply wasn't made well. That being said though, I also don't even think the appearance of a lack of players is simply because of small instances. I know for a fact that many people struggle to play this game consistently and I also know many that have moved on fully.

Jaraal

Elsonso wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

Well they did sunset support for 32 bit Windows PCs shortly after the Morrowind DLC dropped. So they will continue to increase the hardware requirements as they see fit. And it's only logical that at some point they will cease coding around the limitations of the 1st gen consoles. They have the numbers on who plays on what rigs, and perhaps when the number of 1st gen console users drops to a certain point, they will raise the hardware requirements accordingly. But, without them sharing a roadmap with us, we can only speculate.

At this point, I don't expect they have such a roadmap. They have said a lot of people are still playing on older consoles, and we can probably add older PCs to that. I don't see that there is a business reason to chase them off, or they would be doing it. They chased PC players off older hardware more than once, so we know they are willing to do it when they can.

They can keep rearranging the luggage to fit inside the older consoles for a while longer.

At what point do they decide that keeping a few players running antiquated systems outweighs the loss of frustrated players who are leaving due to chronic performance issues and game stagnation due to the current coding limits? First gen console players will get bored and leave as well. They will also move to other games as Cyrodiil goes unfixed and unupdated.

Is it not reasonable to assume that an enhanced and improved ESO would draw more players in the future? Would more players stick around (or old ones come back) if they were technically able to raise the housing item limits? There are many reasons for them to grow the ESO legacy and player involvement. The question is, at what point will they be willing to bring the game up to current standards while risking losing players on older, antiquated systems?

Elsonso

Jaraal wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

Well they did sunset support for 32 bit Windows PCs shortly after the Morrowind DLC dropped. So they will continue to increase the hardware requirements as they see fit. And it's only logical that at some point they will cease coding around the limitations of the 1st gen consoles. They have the numbers on who plays on what rigs, and perhaps when the number of 1st gen console users drops to a certain point, they will raise the hardware requirements accordingly. But, without them sharing a roadmap with us, we can only speculate.

At this point, I don't expect they have such a roadmap. They have said a lot of people are still playing on older consoles, and we can probably add older PCs to that. I don't see that there is a business reason to chase them off, or they would be doing it. They chased PC players off older hardware more than once, so we know they are willing to do it when they can.

They can keep rearranging the luggage to fit inside the older consoles for a while longer.

At what point do they decide that keeping a few players running antiquated systems outweighs the loss of frustrated players who are leaving due to chronic performance issues and game stagnation due to the current coding limits? First gen console players will get bored and leave as well. They will also move to other games as Cyrodiil goes unfixed and unupdated.

Is it not reasonable to assume that an enhanced and improved ESO would draw more players in the future? Would more players stick around (or old ones come back) if they were technically able to raise the housing item limits? There are many reasons for them to grow the ESO legacy and player involvement. The question is, at what point will they be willing to bring the game up to current standards while risking losing players on older, antiquated systems?

If the number of new and old players who don't care about, or can tolerate, performance problems is large enough that they are providing revenue and profit needed to keep the game running, as-is, then 'maintenance mode mentality' suggests that no investment be made.

Players who are sensitive to performance can leave. New players will join. ZOS can filter for players who are not sensitive to performance. Then, all they need to do is keep them around as they become the dominate customer demographic.

Taril

fizzylu wrote: »

Which is why, I don't think it's about graphics at all.... I'd more readily say that the speculated small instance size exists because of how much is constantly being calculated by the servers (proc sets, high APM, the questionable amount of things that are server side and not client) and the simple fact that ESO wasn't built to handle it's own gameplay design. I mean, seriously.... even capes were originally axed partially because their physics were causing too much stress on the server (btw, WoW and GW2 both handle capes just fine).

I think it comes down to how gameplay works.

ESO, there's collision with other characters. So all data regarding character positioning needs to be constantly updated and shared between all nearby players to ensure that collision makes sense (If you've played many FPS's you've probably experienced discrepancy in game state updates in something like being shot when you're behind a corner because on the opponent's screen it hadn't yet updated as you being behind the corner and the game prioritized the shooters state)

Gamestate updates are also important for things like blocking and bashes, ensuring that these things sync up correctly for all players.

Then you have attacks like Arc's laser beam which is a giant, movable hitbox that the game has to process and update (In 3 dimensions)

Essentially, the action orientated gameplay simply is more demanding on servers. Which is also why there's so few of them that allow for large numbers of players (Which is why the Battlefield games are so technically impressive when they do this action formula - With bullets that are projectiles rather than hitscan, but still enable relatively high player count battles)

P.s. WoW capes don't use actual physics. They're simply an extention of a character model that just have their own bones to simulate movement (This is most apparent when playing any race that has a tail, as you'll notice your cape always hovers a solid foot above your tail rather than actually resting on it and being influenced by its movement)

It's very possible for ESO to have done something similar, it however would most likely look like complete garbage. I mean, it's already bad enough how terribly weapons have been implemented - What with most bows clipping into the back of your head when you move, your left elbow clipping into 2 handed axe blades, one handed weapons floating inches away from the random hip plates that are themselves floating an inch away from your actual character's hips...

I don't think adding in yet more mcguffins to poorly implement would make things any better.

OtarTheMad

Jaraal wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

Well they did sunset support for 32 bit Windows PCs shortly after the Morrowind DLC dropped. So they will continue to increase the hardware requirements as they see fit. And it's only logical that at some point they will cease coding around the limitations of the 1st gen consoles. They have the numbers on who plays on what rigs, and perhaps when the number of 1st gen console users drops to a certain point, they will raise the hardware requirements accordingly. But, without them sharing a roadmap with us, we can only speculate.

At this point, I don't expect they have such a roadmap. They have said a lot of people are still playing on older consoles, and we can probably add older PCs to that. I don't see that there is a business reason to chase them off, or they would be doing it. They chased PC players off older hardware more than once, so we know they are willing to do it when they can.

They can keep rearranging the luggage to fit inside the older consoles for a while longer.

At what point do they decide that keeping a few players running antiquated systems outweighs the loss of frustrated players who are leaving due to chronic performance issues and game stagnation due to the current coding limits? First gen console players will get bored and leave as well. They will also move to other games as Cyrodiil goes unfixed and unupdated.

Is it not reasonable to assume that an enhanced and improved ESO would draw more players in the future? Would more players stick around (or old ones come back) if they were technically able to raise the housing item limits? There are many reasons for them to grow the ESO legacy and player involvement. The question is, at what point will they be willing to bring the game up to current standards while risking losing players on older, antiquated systems?

This

ZOS has already said that old consoles hold them back from adding stuff. Memory issues are the reasons for a lot of things not getting changed or added.

OtarTheMad

fizzylu wrote: »

OtarTheMad wrote: »

How big is the map for GW2? I am just genuinely curious because maybe some of the difference is just the number of instances and map size since ESO just has so many zones and things to do. Maybe GW2 has the same but idk.

GW2 also has many zones and it also has different instances depending on how many players are in one zone. There's even a prompt that will pop up if your instance of the current zone you're in is emptying out and closing down to move you over to a more populated one.

I do know GW2 has a higher player cap per instance, but it also doesn't use a megaserver like ESO.... and from my experience playing both games, I'd say a single GW2 server usually feels just as populated as the entire NA server of ESO. Take what you will from that....
And I see a lot of people here bringing up the graphics of ESO, even slightly insinuating ESO is better because of them, and even commenting on how the higher graphic requirements can also be why ESO doesn't perform as well (as if that's a good excuse).... which is kind of the point, isn't it? What good is graphics if the game runs like garbage and results in a world that feels dead?

The devs behind GW2 knew how to create a MMO of actual quality because even without the "better graphics" or a megaserver.... that games physics, the existence of cloaks, flowing robes/dresses, not even just swimming but underwater combat, flying, and so much more with close to zero performance or connection issues, put GW2 miles ahead of ESO in terms of overall quality and life within the game.

Thanks for the information. Same goes to everyone else who gave me info, appreciate it.

So it seems that on their servers they have a combo of NA and EU from what I am gathering from info and this token system also had it so more players were in the picture. Plus, getting kicked out of an empty instance is different, that is definitely not in ESO so that might make ESO seem deader when more players might just be in another instance.

I also looked up the game and it’s not that companies first MMO so that really matters, they’ve made them for a long time. I think for ZOS it might be the first or second they’ve worked on so still kinda green (some devs came from Dark Age of Camelot) . Plus GW2 is free to play so that will always bring in more players since games can be crazy expensive now.

Aurielle

OtarTheMad wrote: »

fizzylu wrote: »

OtarTheMad wrote: »

How big is the map for GW2? I am just genuinely curious because maybe some of the difference is just the number of instances and map size since ESO just has so many zones and things to do. Maybe GW2 has the same but idk.

GW2 also has many zones and it also has different instances depending on how many players are in one zone. There's even a prompt that will pop up if your instance of the current zone you're in is emptying out and closing down to move you over to a more populated one.

I do know GW2 has a higher player cap per instance, but it also doesn't use a megaserver like ESO.... and from my experience playing both games, I'd say a single GW2 server usually feels just as populated as the entire NA server of ESO. Take what you will from that....
And I see a lot of people here bringing up the graphics of ESO, even slightly insinuating ESO is better because of them, and even commenting on how the higher graphic requirements can also be why ESO doesn't perform as well (as if that's a good excuse).... which is kind of the point, isn't it? What good is graphics if the game runs like garbage and results in a world that feels dead?

The devs behind GW2 knew how to create a MMO of actual quality because even without the "better graphics" or a megaserver.... that games physics, the existence of cloaks, flowing robes/dresses, not even just swimming but underwater combat, flying, and so much more with close to zero performance or connection issues, put GW2 miles ahead of ESO in terms of overall quality and life within the game.

Thanks for the information. Same goes to everyone else who gave me info, appreciate it.

So it seems that on their servers they have a combo of NA and EU from what I am gathering from info and this token system also had it so more players were in the picture. Plus, getting kicked out of an empty instance is different, that is definitely not in ESO so that might make ESO seem deader when more players might just be in another instance.

I also looked up the game and it’s not that companies first MMO so that really matters, they’ve made them for a long time. I think for ZOS it might be the first or second they’ve worked on so still kinda green (some devs came from Dark Age of Camelot) . Plus GW2 is free to play so that will always bring in more players since games can be crazy expensive now.

Rationalize it if you must, but I know for sure which game feels fuller and livelier.



Here we are at the start of what is perhaps ESO's most-loved event, open to all players who only have the base game, with some quest changes to shake things up again and bring old players back. Compare that to the screenshot I posted before of a run-of-the-mill world boss event that happens every single day...

I think the major problem here (besides performance driving players away) is that ZOS increasingly caters to a solo-focused player base. That epic feeling of participating with many others on a grand scale is going away a little more with every update. For those who want ESO to be "Skyrim with optional friends," this is likely a good thing. But for those of us who wanted an MMO (with emphasis on the "massively" part of that abbreviation) set in Tamriel, it isn't. Major hubs feel increasingly lifeless. Craglorn in particular is a ghost town. It's just kind of sad, compared to what it was.

AzuraFan

Aurielle wrote: »

I think the major problem here (besides performance driving players away) is that ZOS increasingly caters to a solo-focused player base.

This is simply not true. As a mainly solo player, there's LESS I can do alone in the last two chapters. WBs are more difficult, and leads and other goodies are gated behind trials. Some players can't even finish the main story quest because the end-of-story bosses are too difficult. Can a lot of stuff be done solo? Yes. Is ZOS increasingly catering to solo-focused players, meaning that recently they've been adding more stuff that can be done solo. Absolutely not. If anything, they've been moving in the opposite direction.

Aurielle

AzuraFan wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

I think the major problem here (besides performance driving players away) is that ZOS increasingly caters to a solo-focused player base.

This is simply not true. As a mainly solo player, there's LESS I can do alone in the last two chapters. WBs are more difficult, and leads and other goodies are gated behind trials. Some players can't even finish the main story quest because the end-of-story bosses are too difficult. Can a lot of stuff be done solo? Yes. Is ZOS increasingly catering to solo-focused players, meaning that recently they've been adding more stuff that can be done solo. Absolutely not. If anything, they've been moving in the opposite direction.

The vast majority of the leads in Gold Road can be acquired solo. One lead is in a trial, and suddenly that means ZOS is "moving in the opposite direction"? And if some players can't finish the main story quest because the end-of-story bosses are "too difficult," then I really don't know what to say.

This is the most solo-friendly MMO I think I've ever played, and it's getting easier and easier to play solo all the time. One of the great joys of learning how to play GW2 is that I've actually felt challenged at times doing higher level open world solo content designed for my level. I've even died! No companions to hold my hand and tank stuff for me. Can't remember when last I died doing open world solo content in ESO. 2016, maybe?

Necrotech_Master

Amottica wrote: »

OtarTheMad wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

This MMO is two years older than ESO.



A world boss fight at 4:30pm EST on a weekday... (open the image in a new tab, enjoy counting the number of players on the screen -- I definitely would have been booted to login with the same numbers on ESO).

@Aurielle

IIRC, GW2 is a good game, but its graphics and other aspects are lower quality. This is why the minimum requirements are notably less from the OS to the CPU.

They also have smaller servers. The server design is interesting, but it is smaller.

As I said, it's a good game but of lower quality overall. As such, it is not a good comparison. Their overworld design and performance are better than what we have in Cyrodiil.

This is a discussion about game population decline, not graphics. I posted a screenshot taken this week featuring more players in one location working towards a common goal than I’ve seen in ESO in a very, very, very long time. A lot of people here like to say that new MMOs like T&L are seeing significantly higher player numbers than ESO simply because they’re new MMOs. GW2 is older than ESO, however, and feels so much more alive.

How big is the map for GW2? I am just genuinely curious because maybe some of the difference is just the number of instances and map size since ESO just has so many zones and things to do. Maybe GW2 has the same but idk.

@OtarTheMad

It is not the map size or anything like that. A fight like that is due to them being scheduled at a specific time, and many players have purchased tokens they can use to port to the fight location when it is time.

The fights are a much bigger deal than the little WBs in ESO, so they require more people to take them down. Some require some coordination between three different locations. They also have good drops, making them good for newer players to get mats.

I have felt that ESO lacks serious WBs that require groups to take down.

Below is an image of what the token can do. You can see there is one fight about to start and two coming up. Clicking on any of them ports you to the location.



This is from a website showing all the times one fight will occur over the next ~22 hours. It gives a countdown to each occurrence that happens every 2 hours.



People can plan for it. They must plan for it. We have nothing like it, so the population in the previous image is irrelevant for comparing game populations.

i absolutely hate games that have boss timers like that

at least here if you come in late to a WB fight, you only have to wait 5-10 min for a respawn, not 2 hours

much prefer fighting a WB when i feel like it, instead of on their schedule

AzuraFan

Aurielle wrote: »

The vast majority of the leads in Gold Road can be acquired solo. One lead is in a trial, and suddenly that means ZOS is "moving in the opposite direction"? And if some players can't finish the main story quest because the end-of-story bosses are "too difficult," then I really don't know what to say.

This is the most solo-friendly MMO I think I've ever played, and it's getting easier and easier to play solo all the time. One of the great joys of learning how to play GW2 is that I've actually felt challenged at times doing higher level open world solo content designed for my level. I've even died! No companions to hold my hand and tank stuff for me. Can't remember when last I died doing open world solo content in ESO. 2016, maybe?

The game has always been solo-friendly (after the overhaul). Overland has always been easy. That hasn't changed, so it's not the reason people are suddenly leaving in droves. And we'll have to agree to disagree that the game has become increasingly solo-friendly recently. As a player who mainly solos, my experience is that it hasn't. Your experience may be different.

This whole solo vs. grouped thing is a waste of time anyway. The population isn't suddenly taking a dive because of that. I think people are simply getting bored. The repeatable systems they're bringing in aren't inspired, the PvP changes aren't what PvPers wanted (excepting those who enjoy battlegrounds), the dungeon crowd lost two dungeons a year, and one of the main draws of ESO for the "Skyrim with friends" crowd was the questing. The Q4 story DLC went away, and the annual chapters are smaller.

ZOS has a formula that it doesn't want to stray from, and it doesn't seem willing to invest in major changes that could really make a difference. They're tinkering now, trying to leverage as much existing content as possible. But no new stuff means boredom for most.

The PvP vs. non-PvPers, solo vs. group, trials vs. housing, and all this other nonsense that people get bothered about is just a distraction.

Elsonso

Aurielle wrote: »

AzuraFan wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

I think the major problem here (besides performance driving players away) is that ZOS increasingly caters to a solo-focused player base.

This is simply not true. As a mainly solo player, there's LESS I can do alone in the last two chapters. WBs are more difficult, and leads and other goodies are gated behind trials. Some players can't even finish the main story quest because the end-of-story bosses are too difficult. Can a lot of stuff be done solo? Yes. Is ZOS increasingly catering to solo-focused players, meaning that recently they've been adding more stuff that can be done solo. Absolutely not. If anything, they've been moving in the opposite direction.

The vast majority of the leads in Gold Road can be acquired solo. One lead is in a trial, and suddenly that means ZOS is "moving in the opposite direction"? And if some players can't finish the main story quest because the end-of-story bosses are "too difficult," then I really don't know what to say.

This is the most solo-friendly MMO I think I've ever played, and it's getting easier and easier to play solo all the time. One of the great joys of learning how to play GW2 is that I've actually felt challenged at times doing higher level open world solo content designed for my level. I've even died! No companions to hold my hand and tank stuff for me. Can't remember when last I died doing open world solo content in ESO. 2016, maybe?

This is the most solo friendly MMO that I have ever seen. That said, recently, they seem to be walking that back.

Yes, if a lead in the latest content requires a TRIAL to obtain, where previously this was not the case, that is a change in direction. Additionally, if completing the over-arching achievement for a Chapter requires a group, rather than solo, that is also an indicator of direction.

This game can do both solo and group content, but I will say that as population numbers decline, the people who will be turning off the lights will be the solo players. ZOS would not do wrong by making sure that those solo players stick around long enough to do that.

DreadKnight

Stuck in combat, 0 stam recovery bug in cyrodiil and a number of long standing bugs that have not been fixed or even acknowledged in some cases and with new games like Throne & Liberty and New World on console it's no wonder console numbers are declining.

MISTFORMBZZZ

Aurielle wrote: »

OtarTheMad wrote: »

fizzylu wrote: »

OtarTheMad wrote: »

How big is the map for GW2? I am just genuinely curious because maybe some of the difference is just the number of instances and map size since ESO just has so many zones and things to do. Maybe GW2 has the same but idk.

GW2 also has many zones and it also has different instances depending on how many players are in one zone. There's even a prompt that will pop up if your instance of the current zone you're in is emptying out and closing down to move you over to a more populated one.

I do know GW2 has a higher player cap per instance, but it also doesn't use a megaserver like ESO.... and from my experience playing both games, I'd say a single GW2 server usually feels just as populated as the entire NA server of ESO. Take what you will from that....
And I see a lot of people here bringing up the graphics of ESO, even slightly insinuating ESO is better because of them, and even commenting on how the higher graphic requirements can also be why ESO doesn't perform as well (as if that's a good excuse).... which is kind of the point, isn't it? What good is graphics if the game runs like garbage and results in a world that feels dead?

The devs behind GW2 knew how to create a MMO of actual quality because even without the "better graphics" or a megaserver.... that games physics, the existence of cloaks, flowing robes/dresses, not even just swimming but underwater combat, flying, and so much more with close to zero performance or connection issues, put GW2 miles ahead of ESO in terms of overall quality and life within the game.

Thanks for the information. Same goes to everyone else who gave me info, appreciate it.

So it seems that on their servers they have a combo of NA and EU from what I am gathering from info and this token system also had it so more players were in the picture. Plus, getting kicked out of an empty instance is different, that is definitely not in ESO so that might make ESO seem deader when more players might just be in another instance.

I also looked up the game and it’s not that companies first MMO so that really matters, they’ve made them for a long time. I think for ZOS it might be the first or second they’ve worked on so still kinda green (some devs came from Dark Age of Camelot) . Plus GW2 is free to play so that will always bring in more players since games can be crazy expensive now.

Rationalize it if you must, but I know for sure which game feels fuller and livelier.



Here we are at the start of what is perhaps ESO's most-loved event, open to all players who only have the base game, with some quest changes to shake things up again and bring old players back. Compare that to the screenshot I posted before of a run-of-the-mill world boss event that happens every single day...

I think the major problem here (besides performance driving players away) is that ZOS increasingly caters to a solo-focused player base. That epic feeling of participating with many others on a grand scale is going away a little more with every update. For those who want ESO to be "Skyrim with optional friends," this is likely a good thing. But for those of us who wanted an MMO (with emphasis on the "massively" part of that abbreviation) set in Tamriel, it isn't. Major hubs feel increasingly lifeless. Craglorn in particular is a ghost town. It's just kind of sad, compared to what it was.

While our halloween event looks same, here a cheeky look at belkarth and cyro lol.

7 Pm PRIME TIME

YandereGirlfriend

Taril wrote: »

fizzylu wrote: »

Which is why, I don't think it's about graphics at all.... I'd more readily say that the speculated small instance size exists because of how much is constantly being calculated by the servers (proc sets, high APM, the questionable amount of things that are server side and not client) and the simple fact that ESO wasn't built to handle it's own gameplay design. I mean, seriously.... even capes were originally axed partially because their physics were causing too much stress on the server (btw, WoW and GW2 both handle capes just fine).

I think it comes down to how gameplay works.

ESO, there's collision with other characters. So all data regarding character positioning needs to be constantly updated and shared between all nearby players to ensure that collision makes sense (If you've played many FPS's you've probably experienced discrepancy in game state updates in something like being shot when you're behind a corner because on the opponent's screen it hadn't yet updated as you being behind the corner and the game prioritized the shooters state)

Gamestate updates are also important for things like blocking and bashes, ensuring that these things sync up correctly for all players.

Then you have attacks like Arc's laser beam which is a giant, movable hitbox that the game has to process and update (In 3 dimensions)

Essentially, the action orientated gameplay simply is more demanding on servers. Which is also why there's so few of them that allow for large numbers of players (Which is why the Battlefield games are so technically impressive when they do this action formula - With bullets that are projectiles rather than hitscan, but still enable relatively high player count battles)

P.s. WoW capes don't use actual physics. They're simply an extention of a character model that just have their own bones to simulate movement (This is most apparent when playing any race that has a tail, as you'll notice your cape always hovers a solid foot above your tail rather than actually resting on it and being influenced by its movement)

It's very possible for ESO to have done something similar, it however would most likely look like complete garbage. I mean, it's already bad enough how terribly weapons have been implemented - What with most bows clipping into the back of your head when you move, your left elbow clipping into 2 handed axe blades, one handed weapons floating inches away from the random hip plates that are themselves floating an inch away from your actual character's hips...

I don't think adding in yet more mcguffins to poorly implement would make things any better.

This is a really good and informative post.

It would be AMAZING if like, the devs themselves, could communicate things like this so that players could actually have context for the current conditions/restraints on solutions to them.

That said, I think that it is also fairly self-evident that the game was not written with much care given to concepts such as algorithmic efficiency. And that lack of attention looms very large so many years later. You can get away with that as a dev if your hardware (both server and client) massively outpaces the demands of running your software but clearly that equilibrium has broken down as more and more spaghetti code has been heaped onto the struggling servers over the years.

You can see them attempting to fix some of this, such as modifying the AOE logic of a subset of abilities. But progress on that has been glacially slow going. And it's also likely just the tip of the iceberg.

alternatelder

OtarTheMad wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

Well they did sunset support for 32 bit Windows PCs shortly after the Morrowind DLC dropped. So they will continue to increase the hardware requirements as they see fit. And it's only logical that at some point they will cease coding around the limitations of the 1st gen consoles. They have the numbers on who plays on what rigs, and perhaps when the number of 1st gen console users drops to a certain point, they will raise the hardware requirements accordingly. But, without them sharing a roadmap with us, we can only speculate.

At this point, I don't expect they have such a roadmap. They have said a lot of people are still playing on older consoles, and we can probably add older PCs to that. I don't see that there is a business reason to chase them off, or they would be doing it. They chased PC players off older hardware more than once, so we know they are willing to do it when they can.

They can keep rearranging the luggage to fit inside the older consoles for a while longer.

At what point do they decide that keeping a few players running antiquated systems outweighs the loss of frustrated players who are leaving due to chronic performance issues and game stagnation due to the current coding limits? First gen console players will get bored and leave as well. They will also move to other games as Cyrodiil goes unfixed and unupdated.

Is it not reasonable to assume that an enhanced and improved ESO would draw more players in the future? Would more players stick around (or old ones come back) if they were technically able to raise the housing item limits? There are many reasons for them to grow the ESO legacy and player involvement. The question is, at what point will they be willing to bring the game up to current standards while risking losing players on older, antiquated systems?

This

ZOS has already said that old consoles hold them back from adding stuff. Memory issues are the reasons for a lot of things not getting changed or added.

Don't mix up what he said. It's not impossible, but it is a lot of work to put in new systems is what was said. This was said before two new classes were added. 🤷