If ESO wants to be a 30-year game, when does it drop old tech support?

React · November 11

alternatelder wrote: »

Apollosipod wrote: »

alternatelder wrote: »

I remember when players said old consoles are the reason we won't get another class, then they released Necromancer. Then players said it again, then they released Arcanist.

And the players, still on a broken record, also said we still can't have nice things because old gen is holding us back, and we have gotten companions, ToT, antiquities, scribing, subclassing, a new arena, amongst other new things we supposedly couldn't have because old consoles.

And the players continue saying it, we can't have anything new because old gen...

Well, to be fair it wasn't just the players saying it. It was ZOS

Lol, keep ignoring the facts I mentioned. 🤷 Sure, they said it 4 years ago that old gen is limiting it, but no mention to what extent, and then remember what we've gotten since then.

Brother, the comment they're citing is from the past week. It was posted by kevin in regards to the combat memory reduction, which was done this patch primarily with old-gen hardware in mind.

spartaxoxo · November 11

You can't say older gen is limiting it without understanding how much of the revenue that install base is. If half the players are on older hardware then you wouldn't get new development if they cut support. The game would die because it lost half its revenue.

Older hardware will continue to be supported so long as they make up enough revenue that the game can't lose them. They'll cut support when the majority of their playerbase is no longer on those systems.

Games aren't free to make. It's not only about tech.

Finedaible · November 11

Nah, nah, they'll just rework how the entire game structure works to be able to run on Stadia. Oh wait...

YandereGirlfriend · November 11

alternatelder wrote: »

I remember when players said old consoles are the reason we won't get another class, then they released Necromancer. Then players said it again, then they released Arcanist.

And the players, still on a broken record, also said we still can't have nice things because old gen is holding us back, and we have gotten companions, ToT, antiquities, scribing, subclassing, a new arena, amongst other new things we supposedly couldn't have because old consoles.

And the players continue saying it, we can't have anything new because old gen...

PS4 and Xbox One both have a measly 8 gigs of shared memory, which means that, unlike a PC with a discrete graphics card and regular system memory, those consoles have to run the entire console operating system plus the actual game using only that tiny pool.

All of these weird "memory-saving" changes are simply shaving-off bits of the existing game in order to "pay" for new additions because you have a zero-sum situation with that shared console memory. 8 gigs is all that you will ever have so you have to rob Peter to pay Paul in order to make new content possible.

Kelenan7368 · November 11

Apollosipod wrote: »

ZOS has stated they want ESO to be a 30-year game, but we are currently watching the game flail (literally and figuratively in the case of the most recent contact animation issues). If the reason for this is that old PCs and consoles are holding back the game's development, how long does it maintain support for lower end tech? How many players are at risk of being lost long-term because development is currently working to maintain older tech?

I want this game to succeed and continue to grow, but this last season has really shown the cracks...

I believe they want to push it all the way back to Atari 2600

Kelenan7368 · November 11

kevkj wrote: »

It sounds like the average ESO gamer doesn't have enough disposable cash to upgrade their hardware, surely the root cause are the high prices of ESO Plus, Crowns and Chapters/Pass. I therefore propose all prices be slashed in half, so our less financially solvent Tamriel citizens will redirect their funds towards hardware.

HAHA! That would be great! Instead of nerfing the entire game help the poor purchase a high end unit!

tomofhyrule · November 11

alternatelder wrote: »

Apollosipod wrote: »

alternatelder wrote: »

I remember when players said old consoles are the reason we won't get another class, then they released Necromancer. Then players said it again, then they released Arcanist.

And the players, still on a broken record, also said we still can't have nice things because old gen is holding us back, and we have gotten companions, ToT, antiquities, scribing, subclassing, a new arena, amongst other new things we supposedly couldn't have because old consoles.

And the players continue saying it, we can't have anything new because old gen...

Well, to be fair it wasn't just the players saying it. It was ZOS

Lol, keep ignoring the facts I mentioned. 🤷 Sure, they said it 4 years ago that old gen is limiting it, but no mention to what extent, and then remember what we've gotten since then.

And, as people are pointing out, things are actively being removed to allow the addition of new things. Like that was literally the explanation given from ZOS last week.

There's just a dirty-feeling precedent being set if the official stance is "we are going to make the gameplay worse for [group A] because we still have a lot of people in [group B]."

And how much will they be able to add in the future simply from cannibalizing space? Will we eventually see them remove entire gamemodes? Zones? Cosmetics?

xencthlu · November 11

tomofhyrule wrote: »

And, as people are pointing out, things are actively being removed to allow the addition of new things. Like that was literally the explanation given from ZOS last week.

There's just a dirty-feeling precedent being set if the official stance is "we are going to make the gameplay worse for [group A] because we still have a lot of people in [group B]."

And how much will they be able to add in the future simply from cannibalizing space? Will we eventually see them remove entire gamemodes? Zones? Cosmetics?

I actually came to ESO from STO, which had comparable problems in this area. STO is also notably on the xbox and playstation. I'd say that it's safe to look to STO for some idea of where the path goes. And if you do, you will see STO started removing huge swaths of story content, a significant amount of which was player favourites. They removed the ability to create custom story content, as well, though at the time they claimed it was just too hard to maintain the code update to update. STO never had the quantity of story content ESO has, either, so you'd think it would have been more protective of what little it had to offer.

Eventually, the game offered too little content to be anyone's full time MMO. The constant self-cannibalisation forced STO to switch models to a more seasonal structure, designing around the assumption most players would only be playing for about a week every quarter. The beginning of every quarter would be marked by a single quest drop and some "event" that consisted of doing one task a day to earn some limited time only piece of gear. Under that structure, it didn't make sense to invest heavily in server infrastructure anymore, which meant that the dwindling community started having to design their builds around the assumption that many abilities would not go off when queued. Because they wouldn't. The higher your DPS was, the worse the server strain would be, the worse the problem would be.

So I got very nervous when they added golden pursuits. And I'm not getting less nervous as I read about further development.

spartaxoxo · November 11

They may also go the route some games have gone where they simply stop making every feature for every platform. They already did that with add-ons not being available on older consoles.

Tariq9898 · November 11

tomofhyrule wrote: »

alternatelder wrote: »

Apollosipod wrote: »

alternatelder wrote: »

I remember when players said old consoles are the reason we won't get another class, then they released Necromancer. Then players said it again, then they released Arcanist.

And the players, still on a broken record, also said we still can't have nice things because old gen is holding us back, and we have gotten companions, ToT, antiquities, scribing, subclassing, a new arena, amongst other new things we supposedly couldn't have because old consoles.

And the players continue saying it, we can't have anything new because old gen...

Well, to be fair it wasn't just the players saying it. It was ZOS

Lol, keep ignoring the facts I mentioned. 🤷 Sure, they said it 4 years ago that old gen is limiting it, but no mention to what extent, and then remember what we've gotten since then.

And, as people are pointing out, things are actively being removed to allow the addition of new things. Like that was literally the explanation given from ZOS last week.

There's just a dirty-feeling precedent being set if the official stance is "we are going to make the gameplay worse for [group A] because we still have a lot of people in [group B]."

And how much will they be able to add in the future simply from cannibalizing space? Will we eventually see them remove entire gamemodes? Zones? Cosmetics?

Oh god, I’d HATE for ZOS to go the Destiny route and sunset entire storylines, DLCs, zones, wide selection of weapons, group contents such as raids. Content that people paid for, not just with money but also with time, blood, sweat and tears.

I get that Bungie may have had a different reason, but if memory space is gonna be a continual issue for ZOS, then it might just come to sunsetting big contents. In which case, ZOS needs to let go of last gen consoles, something that many people have been asking for as evidenced by recent updates.

Radiate77 · November 11

I’ll repeat myself from another thread…

People with the kind of hardship that prevents them from upgrading their platform, are the same people who would struggle to pay a subscription fee, or interact with the Crown Store.

Gabriel_H · November 11

Apollosipod wrote: »

ZOS has stated they want ESO to be a 30-year game, but we are currently watching the game flail (literally and figuratively in the case of the most recent contact animation issues). If the reason for this is that old PCs and consoles are holding back the game's development, how long does it maintain support for lower end tech? How many players are at risk of being lost long-term because development is currently working to maintain older tech?

I want this game to succeed and continue to grow, but this last season has really shown the cracks...

Some context.

WoW minimum system specs are 10+ year old tech.
It also runs a vanilla version - WoW Classic - that was released in 2019; it;s minimum system specs are 15+ year old tech.

Final Fantasy XIV - 10+ year old tech
Guild Wars 2 - 15+ year old tech

Even the now maintenance mode New World was 8+ year old tech

tomofhyrule · November 11

Gabriel_H wrote: »

Apollosipod wrote: »

ZOS has stated they want ESO to be a 30-year game, but we are currently watching the game flail (literally and figuratively in the case of the most recent contact animation issues). If the reason for this is that old PCs and consoles are holding back the game's development, how long does it maintain support for lower end tech? How many players are at risk of being lost long-term because development is currently working to maintain older tech?

I want this game to succeed and continue to grow, but this last season has really shown the cracks...

Some context.

WoW minimum system specs are 10+ year old tech.
It also runs a vanilla version - WoW Classic - that was released in 2019; it;s minimum system specs are 15+ year old tech.

Final Fantasy XIV - 10+ year old tech
Guild Wars 2 - 15+ year old tech

Even the now maintenance mode New World was 8+ year old tech

So... are those games also in the state where the devs are saying "we're actively removing things from the current build because we need to support old hardware"?

Or are they just built better than ESO in the first place?

Having any number of games that support hardware even older doesn't change the fact that ESO, as it is built, is struggling to fit on old hardware, and the solution the devs have landed on was to cannibalize itself to make space for the future. That's not conjecture, that's a fact.

StihlReign · November 11

The Elder Scrolls Online (ESO) Min requirements
Operating System: Windows 10 64-bit
Processor: Intel® Core™ i5 2300 or AMD FX4350
Memory: 4 GB RAM
Graphics: DirectX 11.0 compliant video card with 1 GB RAM (e.g., NVIDIA® GeForce® 560 or AMD Radeon™ 6870)
DirectX: Version 11
Network: Broadband Internet connection
Storage: 150 GB available space
Sound Card: DirectX compatible sound card

Windows 10 is no longer supported by Microsoft, as official support ended on October 14, 2025. This means Microsoft no longer provides security updates, feature updates, or technical support for the operating system. The only way to receive security updates after this date is through the paid Extended Security Updates (ESU) program.
What this means for you -
No more security updates: Without security updates, devices running Windows 10 become more vulnerable to viruses, malware, and other security risks.
Continued functionality: Your Windows 10 PC will still work, but it will not receive any new features or security fixes.
End of technical support: Microsoft customer service will no longer provide technical assistance for Windows 10

Minimum system requirements for World of Warcraft
Operating System: Windows 7 64-bit (Service Pack 1) or newer
Processor: 4 Cores, 3.0 GHz processor (4th Generation Intel® Core™ Haswell / AMD Ryzen™ Zen)
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Video Card: DirectX 12 capable with 3GB VRAM (NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 900 series / AMD GCN 4th gen / Intel® Iris® Xe Graphics)
Internet: Broadband internet connection
Storage: 128 GB available space

Interesting...so do min req's mean fully functioning fun to play seamlessly, or able to play, barely functioning? Anyone know the standard and how it's applied? (also - 3GB of RAM?? I'd love to see that gameplay video)

Heronisan · November 11

alternatelder wrote: »

I remember when players said old consoles are the reason we won't get another class, then they released Necromancer. Then players said it again, then they released Arcanist.

And the players, still on a broken record, also said we still can't have nice things because old gen is holding us back, and we have gotten companions, ToT, antiquities, scribing, subclassing, a new arena, amongst other new things we supposedly couldn't have because old consoles.

And the players continue saying it, we can't have anything new because old gen...

Here is an interview with matt where he says "at one point we could not even add a single animation for 6 months because of lack of memory"

They made room for necro and arca by cutting back on other parts of the game to save memory.

Removing awa
Reducing guild trader times
Housing limit
Reducing time mail is saved inbox
Aoe skills capped at 6 targets
and i know theres more

And wouldnt surprise me if hybridization and some simplifying and combining buffs is also actuslly some wsy to save memory

And subclassing didnt cost them a single piece of memory, it was their way of creating new classes by not adding a single piece of animation. Since all u do is just reuse everything thats allready there

And i know they have probavly worked tirelessly behind the scenes skimping and cutting, trying to squeeze out just 1 single ram anywhere they could.

There is no good reason they just suddenly find out 7 years into game life that, Hey! Lets now reduce guild trader timers, just for fun! This was not needed, like there is no good reason for any of these changes that only makes playing the game worse, out of the blue, years into its life. Its actually ridicoulus when u stop to think about it.

spartaxoxo · 12:08AM

Radiate77 wrote: »

I’ll repeat myself from another thread…

People with the kind of hardship that prevents them from upgrading their platform, are the same people who would struggle to pay a subscription fee, or interact with the Crown Store.

That's just not true. Plenty of people can afford 20 bucks here and there for entertainment but can not afford to spend 600 dollars at once for new hardware.

If it wasn't profitable to include such players, they would have been cut loose. That's clearly not the case.

YandereGirlfriend · 12:20AM

The whole refusal to sunset the ancient consoles is extra strange when situated within the historical context of gaming as a hobby.

Like, back in the day, upgrading your console was simply the expected reality and was seen as totally normal if you wanted to play the latest and greatest. And hardware was arguably more expensive for what it was back then when adjusted for inflation. For example, 60$ in 1996 money Nintendo64 games were the original 80-90$ games that we have only recently arrived back at. And when the PS2 arrived, development and support largely stopped for the PS1, etc..

That was even more true for PCs, where the cycle of bleeding edge to obsolete was only like 1-3 years.

Not sure why NOW of all times a line has been drawn arbitrarily in the sand that progress shall not go beyond.

tomofhyrule · 12:39AM

spartaxoxo wrote: »

If it wasn't profitable to include such players, they would have been cut loose. That's clearly not the case.

I don't know if it would be profitable to sacrifice those on older hardware in order to attract lapsed players back with promises of more furnishing slots or new content. None of us do.

And I'm even including ZOS in that too. Yeah, they have the numbers, but if nothing else this year has shown that they have no clue about their playerbase in general. Remember, Subclassing was thought to be as big for the game as One Tamriel and would bring back all of the lapsed players. The team did not think it even conceivable that players would want to forgo Subclassing (confirmed from the Content Creators who tested an early build), or even prefer to not use it. The actions since have shown that the balance problems and new meta were not expected at all by the team, despite the warnings from pretty well everyone who tested on PTS.

I don't know if I trust ZOS to be able to use the data they have. So sure, by all appearances it looks like the desire to remove things from the game in order to keep it playable on older hardware looks like it's a financial decision due to a seemingly large playerbase on older hardware... but this wouldn't be the first time that ZOS looks at the data they have and makes a bizarre choice that pushes out devoted players in hopes of attracting new players who don't stick around.

spartaxoxo · 1:03AM

Snipped for Brevity

tomofhyrule wrote: »

But this wouldn't be the first time that ZOS looks at the data they have and makes a bizarre choice that pushes out devoted players in hopes of attracting new players who don't stick around.

Well pushing out old console players would be pushing out devoted players in the hopes of attracting new ones. Old console players are the ones here and spending money. Lapsed players have already decided not to stick around.

Beyond that, they seem to be working under a tight ship, from a distance. I remember one time a long time ago they had a stream where you could ask questions and they answered. And the response to my question even back then was that they couldn't fix the announcer in DSA because they'd have to cut something new from the game. When they decided to actually start doing more of these QOL changes, they completely cut out two dlc packs.

I don't think there's any guarantee that pushing out old consoles with devoted, paying customers would result in suddenly amazing levels of development that would attract new people and lapsed people to flock to an 11 year old game.

Al_Ex_Andre · 1:27AM

I say that they really should update the requirement, when the first quantum computer will be produced, because it will be night vs day.....

Other than that, ZOS, please consider telling me at least one year in advance if you update the requirements before the first quantum computer that is, so that I have the time and opportunity to upgrade my specs with the best price/off I find.. TY!

Radiate77 · 2:20AM

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

I’ll repeat myself from another thread…

People with the kind of hardship that prevents them from upgrading their platform, are the same people who would struggle to pay a subscription fee, or interact with the Crown Store.

That's just not true. Plenty of people can afford 20 bucks here and there for entertainment but can not afford to spend 600 dollars at once for new hardware.

If it wasn't profitable to include such players, they would have been cut loose. That's clearly not the case.

Xbox One was released in 2013
Xbox Series S/X was released in 2020
The year is 2025…

If you were to have a concurrent 15$ sub that whole time, you’re looking at…

15$ a month • 12 months in a year • 12 years

That’s 2,160 dollars.

In half that time, being 6 years, someone would have spent near 3x the price of a Series S on ESO+ alone, in a quarter of that time, you’re looking at 540$

A quarter of 12 years is 3.

In 3 years you would have had more than enough to purchase a Series X, in 2 years you would have bought a Series S in ESO+ expenditure.

Now let’s assume our old-gen ESO+ player is really bad at saving money… most of us receive large sums of cash, yearly, in the form of tax returns, and let’s not discount the several stimulus checks we’ve been handed out.

Someone who refuses to upgrade, either can’t, or won’t. And both are for the same reason they wouldn’t be subscribed to the game.

Kappachi · 2:36AM

Apollosipod wrote: »

ZOS has stated they want ESO to be a 30-year game, but we are currently watching the game flail (literally and figuratively in the case of the most recent contact animation issues). If the reason for this is that old PCs and consoles are holding back the game's development, how long does it maintain support for lower end tech? How many players are at risk of being lost long-term because development is currently working to maintain older tech?

I want this game to succeed and continue to grow, but this last season has really shown the cracks...

Ideally when we go cross platform I want the most possible people playing at once, it will surpass even WoW at that point since WoW has so many fragmented servers and the world doesn't feel alive, supporting 2 generations of hardware makes sense IMO, but maybe when ps6/next xbox is announced it'd make sense to drop the low-end.

Sluggy · 2:37AM

lostineternity wrote: »

frogthroat wrote: »

It all comes to profit and production cost. As long as PS4 and Xbox One users keep buying ESO+, cosmetics and new expansions, and the cost of keeping the game playable on those devices is lower, the support will not be dropped.

Here is a totally professional graph created with the most cutting edge statistical tool visualising the point when the old HW support will be dropped:

It's not that easy. Majority of player base is not from ps4/xbox one so ZOS shouldn't make user experience worse for everyone because of small fraction of population. But this is logical conclusion and I'm not sure (especially since u35) they are capable of making logical decisions.

For me personally latest changes mean only one thing - they don't plan to support game for a long and trying to squeeze as much money as they can from current playerbase including ps4/xbox one.

I think so because they made a lot of decisions which signal that preserving current state at all cost for them is more important than aknowledgin reality and choosing improving the game and adding new features targeting it's future and not the past.

I mean even such old games as WoW did multiple engine upgrades over the years, constantly updating animationa and graphics, adding modern technologies and visual effects. It's a sign of developers wanting the game to last a long time.
On the other side ZOS cuting features and reducing quality of everything in process making the game feel even more outdated.

As you said yourself, "it's not that easy". It doesn't need to be the case that the majority of players are from any particular platform. But if it IS the case that a particular platform that is limited has enough share of the total inflow of revenue then they are going to avoid anything that would cut it out unless it can be proven that such gains pale in comparison to the potential loss from continuing such support.

spartaxoxo · 2:48AM

Radiate77 wrote: »

Someone who refuses to upgrade, either can’t, or won’t. And both are for the same reason they wouldn’t be subscribed to the game.

Why would you assume that someone spending 20 bucks here and there is continuously subbed? That makes no sense.

Just because people have money to spend on video games now and then doesn't mean they have the money to make large purchases.

Also many people have monthly entertainment budgets. It could be like you can spend no more than 30 bucks a month on just for fun nonsense, just as an example.

You really expect that person to blow almost all of it for 3.5 years to upgrade hardware? And what are they supposed to do for those 3 years in the meantime for stress relief when they have no budget for anything else?

Being able to afford 20 bucks here and there doesn't mean being able to afford 600 dollars on a game console. I have a PS5 but I also understand and respect that it's not in every PlayStation players budget and that's okay. I doubt they expect to be able to use PS4 for Elder Scrolls for all eternity. They know that eventually ZOS will cut it off when it's not profitable anymore.

But if they're making more money keeping them, they're obviously going to try to accommodate them to the best of their ability. Continuous subs are not their only source of revenue and it's not the only way people spend money in this game.

Radiate77 · 3:19AM

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

Someone who refuses to upgrade, either can’t, or won’t. And both are for the same reason they wouldn’t be subscribed to the game.

Why would you assume that someone spending 20 bucks here and there is continuously subbed? That makes no sense.

Just because people have money to spend on video games now and then doesn't mean they have the money to make large purchases.

Also many people have monthly entertainment budgets. It could be like you can spend no more than 30 bucks a month on just for fun nonsense, just as an example.

You really expect that person to blow almost all of it for 3.5 years to upgrade hardware? And what are they supposed to do for those 3 years in the meantime for stress relief when they have no budget for anything else?

Being able to afford 20 bucks here and there doesn't mean being able to afford 600 dollars on a game console. I have a PS5 but I also understand and respect that it's not in every PlayStation players budget and that's okay. I doubt they expect to be able to use PS4 for Elder Scrolls for all eternity. They know that eventually ZOS will cut it off when it's not profitable anymore.

But if they're making more money keeping them, they're obviously going to try to accommodate them to the best of their ability. Continuous subs are not their only source of revenue and it's not the only way people spend money in this game.

Let’s play devils advocate. Is it not incredibly vile to advertise your products to people who should be prioritizing their necessities?

People who cannot afford hardware from 2020, half a decade later, should not be part of the consumer-base for a live service game with this much aggressive monetization.

spartaxoxo · 3:47AM

Radiate77 wrote: »

Let’s play devils advocate. Is it not incredibly vile to advertise your products to people who should be prioritizing their necessities?

People who cannot afford hardware from 2020, half a decade later, should not be part of the consumer-base for a live service game with this much aggressive monetization.

No. Not at all. It's a cheap and safe way to have some fun and relieve stress. There's a lot of people with lower incomes that play MMOs for that reason. F2P MMOs especially can be attractive to such households, but people play ESO too. And that's fine. There are guides out there designed around helping play around the ESO+ free trials so they can unlock gear and manage their inventories more easily. The Endeavor, daily, and Golden Pursuit systems help people get nice stuff for no additional costs.

Gabriel_H · 6:04AM

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

Apollosipod wrote: »

ZOS has stated they want ESO to be a 30-year game, but we are currently watching the game flail (literally and figuratively in the case of the most recent contact animation issues). If the reason for this is that old PCs and consoles are holding back the game's development, how long does it maintain support for lower end tech? How many players are at risk of being lost long-term because development is currently working to maintain older tech?

I want this game to succeed and continue to grow, but this last season has really shown the cracks...

Some context.

WoW minimum system specs are 10+ year old tech.
It also runs a vanilla version - WoW Classic - that was released in 2019; it;s minimum system specs are 15+ year old tech.

Final Fantasy XIV - 10+ year old tech
Guild Wars 2 - 15+ year old tech

Even the now maintenance mode New World was 8+ year old tech

So... are those games also in the state where the devs are saying "we're actively removing things from the current build because we need to support old hardware"?

Or are they just built better than ESO in the first place?

Having any number of games that support hardware even older doesn't change the fact that ESO, as it is built, is struggling to fit on old hardware, and the solution the devs have landed on was to cannibalize itself to make space for the future. That's not conjecture, that's a fact.

Well, WoW released a cut down version, with older tech requirements, so you tell me if that sounds like they may be struggling?

As for are they built better, here's the thing, if the new animations (minus the bugs) had been in from day 1 no one would have noticed. Everyone would be used to them. One of the major differences between ESO and others, is the Devs built a more realistic looking game. It's been the trademark of TES games, to strive for that realism.

Keeping up that realism while maintaining the competitiveness with other MMOs was never going to happen long-term. They aimed too high originally, and now they are having to pare it back.

A large chunk of that competitiveness is who can actually play. At present ESO remains in the ballpark on tech with their competition.

YandereGirlfriend · 6:39AM

Sluggy wrote: »

lostineternity wrote: »

frogthroat wrote: »

It all comes to profit and production cost. As long as PS4 and Xbox One users keep buying ESO+, cosmetics and new expansions, and the cost of keeping the game playable on those devices is lower, the support will not be dropped.

Here is a totally professional graph created with the most cutting edge statistical tool visualising the point when the old HW support will be dropped:

It's not that easy. Majority of player base is not from ps4/xbox one so ZOS shouldn't make user experience worse for everyone because of small fraction of population. But this is logical conclusion and I'm not sure (especially since u35) they are capable of making logical decisions.

For me personally latest changes mean only one thing - they don't plan to support game for a long and trying to squeeze as much money as they can from current playerbase including ps4/xbox one.

I think so because they made a lot of decisions which signal that preserving current state at all cost for them is more important than aknowledgin reality and choosing improving the game and adding new features targeting it's future and not the past.

I mean even such old games as WoW did multiple engine upgrades over the years, constantly updating animationa and graphics, adding modern technologies and visual effects. It's a sign of developers wanting the game to last a long time.
On the other side ZOS cuting features and reducing quality of everything in process making the game feel even more outdated.

As you said yourself, "it's not that easy". It doesn't need to be the case that the majority of players are from any particular platform. But if it IS the case that a particular platform that is limited has enough share of the total inflow of revenue then they are going to avoid anything that would cut it out unless it can be proven that such gains pale in comparison to the potential loss from continuing such support.

I just think it's a wild assumption to believe that a current PS4 owner will just plant their flag in the ground and be like, "This is as far as I go with this hobby, I will never upgrade to a PS5/6, etc. PS4 forever!"

It would be interesting to know, for example, how many of those Destiny players took the content freeze for last-gen consoles as the catalyst to finally upgrade to the current gen. Likely many/most of them did. As I would highly doubt that they were simply lost forever to gaming (or even just to Destiny) as a hobby. Inertia is STRONG, and, yes, sometimes it takes a disruptive event to finally get people to act.

And like, if gaming is your main hobby, then you should assign it some priority. Plenty of PC folks budget ahead of time for their next GPU upgrade, CPU upgrade, etc. because, yes, throwing-down a grand+ for a GPU on a whim isn't something that most folk can afford to do. Why are consoles any different? Last-gen console owners have had... 13 years... to budget for an upgrade. Perhaps more realistically, five years since the current-gen consoles launched. That is far in excess of a reasonable grace period, particularly when it is directly nerfing both the present and the future of the game to maintain them.

BretonMage · 7:30AM

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

Let’s play devils advocate. Is it not incredibly vile to advertise your products to people who should be prioritizing their necessities?

People who cannot afford hardware from 2020, half a decade later, should not be part of the consumer-base for a live service game with this much aggressive monetization.

No. Not at all. It's a cheap and safe way to have some fun and relieve stress. There's a lot of people with lower incomes that play MMOs for that reason. F2P MMOs especially can be attractive to such households, but people play ESO too. And that's fine. There are guides out there designed around helping play around the ESO+ free trials so they can unlock gear and manage their inventories more easily. The Endeavor, daily, and Golden Pursuit systems help people get nice stuff for no additional costs.

That's a fair point. Inclusiveness is good business too. I wish they would find another way to solve this issue, as animations are so important in a game. As others have mentioned, perhaps limit newer content, where possible, to those with current hardware? Or is it possible to have reduced quality animations only apply for players with older systems? Hate the idea of excluding people on the basis of means but I really don't like the idea of having reduced quality for anything.

frogthroat · 7:37AM

The speculation of why people don't upgrade their hardware is irrelevant. It tries to find ought from is. A for-profit company's purpose is to make profit. They don't care why people spend their money on their product unless they can use that information to sell more products.

Old gen consoles must bring in more money than the cost of legacy support is. And as long as that is the case, the support will not be dropped.

Edit: a quick google search revealed that in 2024 PS4 vs PS5 use was 50/50 and in 2025 it's still 30/70. Assuming the same percentage in Xbox, 30% is still a large portion. I don't see a for-profit corporation dropping 30% of their console profits voluntarily.