Maintenance for the week of January 12:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 12
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 12
Last Gen Consoles Holding the Game Back - An Idea For Dropping Them
-
Northwold✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭To repeat, the likes of PS4 are not "old hardware" in terms of the size of user base and the current generation has only barely started to outnumber the previous one. I appreciate that people want to pretend reality doesn't exist, but much of this discussion is plain silly. A game needs to cater to the hardware players actually use, not the hardware we fantasise they possessed.Edited by Northwold on December 21, 2025 12:10PM5 -
Apollosipod✭✭✭✭To repeat, the likes of PS4 are not "old hardware" in terms of the size of user base and the current generation has only barely started to outnumber the previous one. I appreciate that people want to pretend reality doesn't exist, but much of this discussion is plain silly. A game needs to cater to the hardware players actually use, not the hardware we fantasise they possessed.
I think you're missing the point. It may be what a lot of players are using, but majority of use doesn't mean that it isn't what's causing technical limitations (especially when that's something ZOS has specifically stated). A larger number of people doesn't make the tech magically newer. The game is literally bring held back because consoles like the PS4 have memory limitations that ZOS is not struggling to work around for future development. People aren't still trying to make games work for the PS3 because more people have them. Other games have also stopped releasing newer DLCs on last gen consoles because they couldn't make the DLC work on them. That's what needs to happen with ESO or they're going to keep doing things like the recent animation changes and lose the players anyway due to lack of quality.
If insisting on using older consoles is the hill players want to die on then eventually they'll just keep dragging the game down with them until there's no one left to justify the funding anyway.10 -
Gabriel_H✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭WoW Classic is 15 year old tech and it was only released just over 5 years ago.
Wow classic is a potato itself. Is current WoW constantly cutting it's parts to fit 15 yo tech stopping itself from moving forward until something is deleted, leaving the game in broken state for months? never heard of it. I will gladly accept if ESO will have classic version for old hardware
WoW minimum specs are 10 year old tech - because that is the industry standard for MMOs, breaking from that risks financial viabilty.
The problem many seem to have is conflating ESO being a 10 year old game and having 10 year old minimum specs - without failing to realise if ZOS never updated those specs then you'd have had to have a top tier rig at release, which of course you didn't.
ESO like every MMO peridodically update their minimum requirements, to bring them inline with the industry standard and their competitors.
For context:
Original 2014 Minimum Requirements:
Windows XP 32-bit/Vista/7
Dual Core 2.0 GHz or equivalent
2 GB
DirectX 9 compliant video card with 512MB VRAM (e.g., GeForce 8800 or Radeon HD 4800 series)
Storage: ~30 GB
At the time of release that was 7/8 year old tech.PC EU
Never get involved in a land war in Asia - it's one of the classic blunders!0 -
Cooperharley✭✭✭✭✭
✭I'd love to see % numbers on how many actually still play on old consoles and extremely old spec-PCs to where this is still an issuePC-NA | @Cooperharley2 -
Gabriel_H✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Cooperharley wrote: »I'd love to see % numbers on how many actually still play on old consoles and extremely old spec-PCs to where this is still an issue
PS: Roughly a 50/50 split - https://reddit.com/r/PS4/comments/1lab67x/sony_confirms_ps5_has_more_monthly_players_than/
XBox: Microsoft don't release usage figures, but there is nothing to suggest the same trend found in PS isn't true for XBox. What we do know is units sold:
Xbox 360 85.73 million
Xbox One 57.96 million
Xbox Series 27.68 million
That would indicate a lot of XBox users have not upgraded to the latest.
PC: Steam run a monthly hardware survey - https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam
As PC's can be upgraded more regularly the split is more spread out than on Consoles. The survey would indicate a not insigficant number are still running DX11 and even DX10 for example on integrated CPU/GPUs; and the most used GPUs are 5+ years old. Likewise the most common used CPU's would be considered entry-level.PC EU
Never get involved in a land war in Asia - it's one of the classic blunders!5 -
Cooperharley✭✭✭✭✭
✭Cooperharley wrote: »I'd love to see % numbers on how many actually still play on old consoles and extremely old spec-PCs to where this is still an issue
PS: Roughly a 50/50 split - https://reddit.com/r/PS4/comments/1lab67x/sony_confirms_ps5_has_more_monthly_players_than/
XBox: Microsoft don't release usage figures, but there is nothing to suggest the same trend found in PS isn't true for XBox. What we do know is units sold:
Xbox 360 85.73 million
Xbox One 57.96 million
Xbox Series 27.68 million
That would indicate a lot of XBox users have not upgraded to the latest.
PC: Steam run a monthly hardware survey - https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam
As PC's can be upgraded more regularly the split is more spread out than on Consoles. The survey would indicate a not insigficant number are still running DX11 and even DX10 for example on integrated CPU/GPUs; and the most used GPUs are 5+ years old. Likewise the most common used CPU's would be considered entry-level.
Great info, thanks! Kinda surprising, but also not given how expensive these consoles are nowadaysPC-NA | @Cooperharley0 -
SkaiFaith✭✭✭✭✭
✭Cooperharley wrote: »I'd love to see % numbers on how many actually still play on old consoles and extremely old spec-PCs to where this is still an issue
PS: Roughly a 50/50 split - https://reddit.com/r/PS4/comments/1lab67x/sony_confirms_ps5_has_more_monthly_players_than/
XBox: Microsoft don't release usage figures, but there is nothing to suggest the same trend found in PS isn't true for XBox. What we do know is units sold:
Xbox 360 85.73 million
Xbox One 57.96 million
Xbox Series 27.68 million
That would indicate a lot of XBox users have not upgraded to the latest.
PC: Steam run a monthly hardware survey - https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam
As PC's can be upgraded more regularly the split is more spread out than on Consoles. The survey would indicate a not insigficant number are still running DX11 and even DX10 for example on integrated CPU/GPUs; and the most used GPUs are 5+ years old. Likewise the most common used CPU's would be considered entry-level.
I always point this out to PC gamers - often said gamers have a PC with the latest high-end components and live in a bubble where everyone has or should have the same rig.
Personally I am the kind of person that always chase the most powerful console I can get (Xbox side) on day one of hardware release, so I tend to agree that abandoning older hardware would be beneficial BUT... Today's hardware prices are CRAZY!
Xbox Series X should be priced at 350 by now if we were in a "normal" time. Instead it is almost 800 - What. The. Guar.
RAM prices are out of this world. GPUs are still insane.
Yeah, I'd love for ESO to raise the bar and use Xbox Series S specs as minimum (which IS NOT worst than average PCs, since GTX 1650 is so common) but with this economy... I understand it can be asking too much for many players all over the world, outside my personal bubble.
"Cloud gaming will save us all!" Except I live in a top 7 countries in the world, near a major city, and still only have 20Mbps download speed - and never even reach those.
We are argonians in the hands of Morrowind Houses. (No, not referring to the devs. Wider argument, but won't go off topic).A: "We, as humans, should respect and take care of each other like in a Co-op, not a PvP 🌸"
B: "Many words. Words bad. Won't read. ⚔️"3 -
jm42✭✭✭✭The problem many seem to have is conflating ESO being a 10 year old game and having 10 year old minimum specs - without failing to realise if ZOS never updated those specs then you'd have had to have a top tier rig at release, which of course you didn't.
I fail to see where your answer is covering the problem with the game eating itself, you are just proving that ESO is in the worse state as WoW doesn't have to cut features before every update. and WoW is PC only where you have more ways to make it work on low-end hardware4 -
licenturion✭✭✭✭✭
✭More live games are cutting PS4 support lately.
Genshin Impact does, the Finals does and there are others. Sony won't even offer even free PS4 games on their PSN+ services starting 2026. Sony is also deprecating specific PS4 APIs and OS functionality starting 2016.
I wish game development wasn't held back for super ancient hardware. And yes 12 year old hardware is super old and obsolete in the IT-space. It's like still using an iPhone 5 (which was also released that year)
Edited by licenturion on December 21, 2025 6:44PM7 -
Gabriel_H✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭RAM prices are out of this world. GPUs are still insane.
Historically RAM was super expensive until they cracked the manufacturing process. Back in the days of DDR3 RAM was cheap as heck - about $5 - $6 per GB. Today DDR5 will set you back double that.Yeah, I'd love for ESO to raise the bar and use Xbox Series S specs as minimum (which IS NOT worst than average PCs, since GTX 1650 is so common) but with this economy... I understand it can be asking too much for many players all over the world, outside my personal bubble
From the Steam hardware survey:
Edited by Gabriel_H on December 21, 2025 7:12PMPC EU
Never get involved in a land war in Asia - it's one of the classic blunders!0 -
Gabriel_H✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭The problem many seem to have is conflating ESO being a 10 year old game and having 10 year old minimum specs - without failing to realise if ZOS never updated those specs then you'd have had to have a top tier rig at release, which of course you didn't.
I fail to see where your answer is covering the problem with the game eating itself, you are just proving that ESO is in the worse state as WoW doesn't have to cut features before every update. and WoW is PC only where you have more ways to make it work on low-end hardware
Closing off a large chunk of your market that competitors will then take is worse. I can probably find 3 or 4 more ways to say that, but do I really need to?!PC EU
Never get involved in a land war in Asia - it's one of the classic blunders!0 -
SkaiFaith✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yeah, I'd love for ESO to raise the bar and use Xbox Series S specs as minimum (which IS NOT worst than average PCs, since GTX 1650 is so common) but with this economy... I understand it can be asking too much for many players all over the world, outside my personal bubble
From the Steam hardware survey:
...yeah? Which is the fifth most common GPU overall, above that just 3050, 3060 and 4060 (+ laptop).
My point is 5090, 5080, 4090, 4080 are not the norm. Never been, never will be (as tier).
Just as you wouldn't balance damage in game around top 0.1% DDs, you'll never see games optimized around that kind of hardware. Minimal common denominator is what it's aimed at.Edited by SkaiFaith on December 21, 2025 7:22PMA: "We, as humans, should respect and take care of each other like in a Co-op, not a PvP 🌸"
B: "Many words. Words bad. Won't read. ⚔️"2 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭In order to know whether or not they're holding back development, you'd have to know what percentage of the playerbase and revenue they are.
For all you know, the product isn't financially viable at all without them. Having to cater around old hardware is not the same thing as that old hardware holding the game back.
Companies sunset older hardware when it's financially viable to do so.8 -
Gabriel_H✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Yeah, I'd love for ESO to raise the bar and use Xbox Series S specs as minimum (which IS NOT worst than average PCs, since GTX 1650 is so common) but with this economy... I understand it can be asking too much for many players all over the world, outside my personal bubble
From the Steam hardware survey:
...yeah? Which is the fifth most common GPU overall, above that just 3050, 3060 and 4060 (+ laptop).
My point is 5090, 5080, 4090, 4080 are not the norm. Never been, never will be (as tier).
Just as you wouldn't balance damage in game around top 0.1% DDs, you'll never see games optimized around that kind of hardware. Minimal common denominator is what it's aimed at.
3% isn't "common". And that's graphic cards - not all GPUs. It doesn't include intergrated GPUs and Combined.
Compare that to the Intel HD Graphics 4000 - an integrated GPU, running on DX11, and is 13 years old - usage at 27.33%Edited by Gabriel_H on December 21, 2025 7:45PMPC EU
Never get involved in a land war in Asia - it's one of the classic blunders!1 -
licenturion✭✭✭✭✭
✭spartaxoxo wrote: »In order to know whether or not they're holding back development, you'd have to know what percentage of the playerbase and revenue they are.
For all you know, the product isn't financially viable at all without them. Having to cater around old hardware is not the same thing as that old hardware holding the game back.
Companies sunset older hardware when it's financially viable to do so.
I would be very surprised that people who cling on to 12 old deprecated hardware are spending whales on game software products and ESO+ and PSN+ subscriptions (which you need to play).
I see other live service games not releasing anymore on PS4 or pulling back support. If they want to keep going with ESO for 10 years like they said, the day they cut support is coming eventually.Edited by licenturion on December 21, 2025 7:49PM4 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭licenturion wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »In order to know whether or not they're holding back development, you'd have to know what percentage of the playerbase and revenue they are.
For all you know, the product isn't financially viable at all without them. Having to cater around old hardware is not the same thing as that old hardware holding the game back.
Companies sunset older hardware when it's financially viable to do so.
I would be very surprised that people who cling on to 12 old deprecated hardware are spending whales on game software products and ESO+ and PSN+ subscriptions (which you need to play).
I see other live service games not releasing anymore on PS4 or pulling back support. If they want to keep going with ESO for 10 years like they said, the day they cut support is coming eventually.
A lot of people on those old platforms are still spending that's why they're being catered towards. It would have be a pretty significant source of revenue for them to be making the changes they're making to keep them.
It's for sure coming eventually. But until then, there's no reason to come up with ways to drop them because those decisions are based on financials that we don't have any information on.Edited by spartaxoxo on December 21, 2025 8:26PM3 -
YandereGirlfriend✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭The game is absolutely being held-back by last-gen tech, primarily the consoles. This is undeniable and has literally been stated by the devs numerous times.
Sony and Microsoft really shot themselves in the foot by not forcing people to upgrade their consoles some time over the last several years. Back in the day, the mentality was far more ruthless: the Nintendo64 is here thus the Super Nintendo is dead - deal with it if you want to play new games. last-gen support was over as soon as the new gen arrived. And people accepted this.
For whatever reason, both companies decided not to do this and game developers across all regions and genres are paying the price for it. If you read gamedev interviews, they really dislike having to make last-gen nerfed versions of their games available to appease Sony and MS. ESO is just another log on that burning pyre but the fault is completely on Sony and MS for creating the situation to begin with.8 -
Lord_Hev✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Release ESO Classic that runs on old hardware compliant tech and then update retail ESO for next generational consoles. Win-win.4 -
SkaiFaith✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yeah, I'd love for ESO to raise the bar and use Xbox Series S specs as minimum (which IS NOT worst than average PCs, since GTX 1650 is so common) but with this economy... I understand it can be asking too much for many players all over the world, outside my personal bubble
From the Steam hardware survey:
...yeah? Which is the fifth most common GPU overall, above that just 3050, 3060 and 4060 (+ laptop).
My point is 5090, 5080, 4090, 4080 are not the norm. Never been, never will be (as tier).
Just as you wouldn't balance damage in game around top 0.1% DDs, you'll never see games optimized around that kind of hardware. Minimal common denominator is what it's aimed at.
3% isn't "common". And that's graphic cards - not all GPUs. It doesn't include intergrated GPUs and Combined.
Compare that to the Intel HD Graphics 4000 - an integrated GPU, running on DX11, and is 13 years old - usage at 27.33%
Ah, sure. My bad, I didn't interpret your point that way.A: "We, as humans, should respect and take care of each other like in a Co-op, not a PvP 🌸"
B: "Many words. Words bad. Won't read. ⚔️"0 -
Radiate77✭✭✭✭✭
✭The problem many seem to have is conflating ESO being a 10 year old game and having 10 year old minimum specs - without failing to realise if ZOS never updated those specs then you'd have had to have a top tier rig at release, which of course you didn't.
I fail to see where your answer is covering the problem with the game eating itself, you are just proving that ESO is in the worse state as WoW doesn't have to cut features before every update. and WoW is PC only where you have more ways to make it work on low-end hardware
Closing off a large chunk of your market that competitors will then take is worse. I can probably find 3 or 4 more ways to say that, but do I really need to?!
What competitors?
As far as Fantasy MMOs, all we have on console is ESO. It is in a league of it’s own, and for people facing the type of hardship that would prevent them from buying a modern device, spending money on a video game is unrealistic.2 -
jm42✭✭✭✭Closing off a large chunk of your market that competitors will then take is worse. I can probably find 3 or 4 more ways to say that, but do I really need to?!
it was already discussed here, we can't measure how many players will abandon ESO because of it's limitations for somethimg more shiny, and we can't measure how many new players won't be attracted to play at first place0 -
BananaBender✭✭✭✭✭For ESO to remain relevant, ZOS will have to continue adding new and interesting features. Those features inevitably come with a cost—either in performance or in higher hardware requirements. That’s simply the nature of nearly every live-service game I’ve played.
From this point forward, one of three things will have to happen: the quality of updates and new features declines, the pace of updates slows down significantly, or the minimum system requirements increase.
You can’t keep adding systems, mechanics, and content indefinitely when there’s a hard ceiling imposed by what older hardware (both consoles and PCs) can handle. Realistically, the only viable long-term solution is the one most other games eventually choose: raising the minimum requirements. At some point, that will also mean leaving older consoles behind. That outcome isn’t a question of if, only when.
Comparing ESO to other games based on whether they still support older platforms is largely pointless, in my opinion. These decisions are heavily influenced by engine design and rendering technology. Some games can be optimized to remain viable on older hardware for many years; ESO is not one of them. We’ve already seen the consequences of these limitations, most recently in the form of noticeably degraded animations that are directly tied to hardware constraints. Another clear example is the furnishing cap, which ZOS has explicitly stated will not be increased due to performance concerns. Source below:"One of the most frequent requests we receive in regards to housing is the desire to increase the furnishing cap. While we have touched on this before, we just wanted to reiterate that the upper-most furnishing limits are in place to avoid serious performance issues. While the core design philosophy behind housing is to give you the creative freedom to decorate the way you want to, we have to ensure that it is a stable experience for you and your visitors as well, regardless of anyone’s platform or hardware specifications.
That being said, improving performance is not a magic bullet solution for raising the furnishing cap in houses. “Performance” is a blanket term that encompasses frame rate, stability, memory usage, and other metrics related to how the game runs. Right now, setups that hit the minimum specifications can still struggle with homes that are fully decorated with relatively high impact furnishings."
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/512076/february-2020-furnishing-limit-status-update/p1
At this point, we can only speculate how many features we’ve never even heard about because they simply wouldn’t fit within the current minimum requirement, or how much development time is being spent trying to force new features to work within those constraints, e.g. imagine if the time spent butchering the animations was used to create new content.
If ZOS wants ESO to last another decade let alone reach a third one, they will eventually have to raise the system requirements. Again, it’s not a matter of if, but when. Many other games have already dropped PS4 support, and to me it’s a major red flag if ZOS doesn’t follow that path, because it means they don't expect the game to last long enough for the short term loss players to pay for itself in the long run.Edited by BananaBender on December 22, 2025 1:47AM8 -
Turtle_Bot✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭@BananaBender hit the nail on the head here.For ESO to remain relevant, ZOS will have to continue adding new and interesting features. Those features inevitably come with a cost—either in performance or in higher hardware requirements. That’s simply the nature of nearly every live-service game I’ve played.
From this point forward, one of three things will have to happen: the quality of updates and new features declines, the pace of updates slows down significantly, or the minimum system requirements increase.
Looping back the example/"analogy" given on page 1 regarding a game needing 10k players to remain viabledropping old tech loses 4k on old tech, but gaining 1k from the new features, I have an issue with it where it completely ignores the fact that by catering to those 4k still on (what is realistically ancient tech now), the game is already losing a significant part of that remaining 6k player base due to not only a lack of new content/systems being introduced, but also the complete butchering of core fundamentals of the game (animations) to make way for these partial content/systems that never get finished, but are needed to keep the game relevant.
So by choosing to cater to those 4k players on such old tech to keep them around, not only does the game not gain the 1k new/returning players, but it also ends up losing a significant portion of the other 6k players of that 10k total because the game cannot grow naturally and is actively being made worse to introduce unfinished attempts at forcing it to grow.
Let's be generous and say it's only 2k players being lost because the hypothetical studio behind said game is butchering the games core features/functions to save space and cater to those 4k players while introducing new features/systems. Combine that 2k players lost with the 1k players (new or returning) that will not come into the game, and that is still the same net 3k loss in players that would have resulted from dropping older tech that still results in the game being shut down anyway (that also completely excludes the portion of those 4k players on old tech that would have upgraded anyway if needed, so in reality it's likely actually a bigger loss in player numbers to not cut off such old tech than it would be to keep old tech, based on these hypothetical figures).
The other issue I have with the arguments put forward in this thread about trying to keep the game running on such old tech is the comparison to games like WOW Classic, single player games and non-live service games, because it's comparing apples to oranges.Those games are designed to run on such hardware but they also don't need to be updated with new content/systems/features every single year to keep them viable, because they are not live-service games. As such it is expected that they don't get new features (or any updates at all) and what the game is, is what the players get.
ESO is not these games, it is a live service MMORPG. This genre of game needs to keep adding new content/systems/etc. because if it doesn't then it gets stale and dies off.
WOW Classic is an technically MMO, but it's essentially the same as a single player game because it's been designed around the fact that it will never get updates or new features/content and as such it doesn't need to update its specs.
Maybe ZOS does need to create an "ESO Classic" server, taking it back to like summerset or morrowind chapter and that's where it stays.Players on old hardware can play on that server to play the game at a point where it was performant on such hardware, but there is the expectation that if they want to experience the "latest and greatest" new features/systems/content then they (like the game itself) must look to start upgrading.
This doesn't mean they (or ESO) need to be on the latest tech all the time, but 10 years is borderline ancient tech (especially when things like phones are being made redundant after like 2-3 years). 5-8 years is a good middle ground to upgrade tech. It allows a reasonable time-frame for even the poorest of players to save up for the eventual upgrade that they know will be coming, and it allows companies like ZOS to look to the future knowing that they don't need to compromise any of the essentials (such as animations) just to think about adding in a new class, or zone, or even a simple skill reskin.3 -
queenlarxene✭✭I get where you're coming from about older hardware potentially holding back game features and that old consoles will likely have to be dropped at some point. But the idea that it's possible for them to simultaneously run two sets of servers, one for the game as it is now for older devices to use, one that would continue receiving updates and new content for newer devices seems... I dunno, just really unrealistic?
Like, they barely have the people and hardware resources to run the game as it is now, what makes anyone think that Microsoft is going to allow the significant time and cost associated with setting this up? Just think about the logistics involved for a minute and consider the viability.2 -
SkaiFaith✭✭✭✭✭
✭queenlarxene wrote: »I get where you're coming from about older hardware potentially holding back game features and that old consoles will likely have to be dropped at some point. But the idea that it's possible for them to simultaneously run two sets of servers, one for the game as it is now for older devices to use, one that would continue receiving updates and new content for newer devices seems... I dunno, just really unrealistic?
Like, they barely have the people and hardware resources to run the game as it is now, what makes anyone think that Microsoft is going to allow the significant time and cost associated with setting this up? Just think about the logistics involved for a minute and consider the viability.
This is a case where the will of the devs < the will of Microsoft < the will of investors < MONEY.
The will of the players to have any power must influence the top factor BUT only in a way that pushes investors in a direction that Microsoft sees as beneficial for their pockets. Begging devs won't change anything. Abandoning the game will take to "videogames' natural selection".
I often see the joking comment "Zos servers' hamsters are dead" - WE are the hamsters; how much are we still willing to run? Personally, I'm gonna die on this wheel.A: "We, as humans, should respect and take care of each other like in a Co-op, not a PvP 🌸"
B: "Many words. Words bad. Won't read. ⚔️"2 -
ajkb78✭✭✭✭✭I've just recently upgraded to a PS5 (they were available for < £200, it was an offer I couldn't refuse). Honestly it was the best move ever. PS4, even with a SSD I regularly had invisible enemy and black outline player issues, extremely long load screens, regular trial instances that were so badly laggy that they were basically unplayable. PS5 all those problems are gone, the game is smooth and buttery. Also the PS4 is approaching EOL with support winding down starting in January 2026. I suspect it's still slightly early to withdraw support, but it would be helpful if the devs made an announcement about intent so that remaining PS4 users could plan ahead and save up for what will increasingly become a necessary move.3
-
katanagirl1✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I've just recently upgraded to a PS5 (they were available for < £200, it was an offer I couldn't refuse). Honestly it was the best move ever. PS4, even with a SSD I regularly had invisible enemy and black outline player issues, extremely long load screens, regular trial instances that were so badly laggy that they were basically unplayable. PS5 all those problems are gone, the game is smooth and buttery. Also the PS4 is approaching EOL with support winding down starting in January 2026. I suspect it's still slightly early to withdraw support, but it would be helpful if the devs made an announcement about intent so that remaining PS4 users could plan ahead and save up for what will increasingly become a necessary move.
That was my experience as well, I upgraded quite a while ago (maybe two years ago) from PS4 Pro but still saw significant improvement even back then. It has got to be so much worse now. The game is definitely in an unplayable state for those on PS4. I think the split playerbase is why the performance issues get either made a higher priority than they should be or ignored, depending on who is posting. Even so, the game is starting to show the same problems on PS5 now.
I think many here are trying to highlight that these problems are not limited to console players, as we are generally encouraged more as gamers to upgrade as new hardware comes out whereas PC players seem not to be as much. I would bet that if hardware specs were increased that there would be many PC players who would be caught completely by surprise. They have the option to downgrade their graphics too, which those of us on console do not have that option.
Khajiit Stamblade main
Dark Elf Magsorc
Redguard Stamina Dragonknight
Orc Stamplar PVP
Breton Magsorc PVP
Dark Elf Necromancer
Dark Elf Magden
Khajiit Stamblade
Khajiit Stamina Arcanist
PS5 NA3 -
Turtle_Bot✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭katanagirl1 wrote: »I've just recently upgraded to a PS5 (they were available for < £200, it was an offer I couldn't refuse). Honestly it was the best move ever. PS4, even with a SSD I regularly had invisible enemy and black outline player issues, extremely long load screens, regular trial instances that were so badly laggy that they were basically unplayable. PS5 all those problems are gone, the game is smooth and buttery. Also the PS4 is approaching EOL with support winding down starting in January 2026. I suspect it's still slightly early to withdraw support, but it would be helpful if the devs made an announcement about intent so that remaining PS4 users could plan ahead and save up for what will increasingly become a necessary move.
That was my experience as well, I upgraded quite a while ago (maybe two years ago) from PS4 Pro but still saw significant improvement even back then. It has got to be so much worse now. The game is definitely in an unplayable state for those on PS4. I think the split playerbase is why the performance issues get either made a higher priority than they should be or ignored, depending on who is posting. Even so, the game is starting to show the same problems on PS5 now.
I think many here are trying to highlight that these problems are not limited to console players, as we are generally encouraged more as gamers to upgrade as new hardware comes out whereas PC players seem not to be as much. I would bet that if hardware specs were increased that there would be many PC players who would be caught completely by surprise. They have the option to downgrade their graphics too, which those of us on console do not have that option.
This has been my experience as well on PC.
I built my old desktop back around when ESO launched, it was a solid rig for back then (not top of the line, but still high end) and even today could probably still play ESO. But when I got a new laptop a few years ago, the performance difference was extremely noticeable.
Much less crashing (even in ball group plagued cyrodiil) and significantly fewer issues playing the game that are not either known server side issues or ISP issues. It's not like I got a top of the line laptop either (good, yes, but iirc it was top of the line tech pre-2020 and I got it post 2020).
From my experience, most gaming tech (PC's and consoles) seem to be the most stable and reliable between the 1-6 year period after it's release (the first year of release they are working out the bugs/issues, after about 6 years the tech becomes old/outdated and other issues start showing up).
PS5 (iirc) is currently reaching around the 5-6 year mark since it's release (even though most people would only have had it for maybe 1-3 years now due to global circumstances/events beyond their control), so in terms of product timeline, the PS5 (and equivalent XBox) are already reaching the end of their reliability/stability time-frame, where a new version would already be announced for release next year (it wouldn't surprise me to see PS6 or equivalent announced within the next year or 2).1 -
jm42✭✭✭✭
and XBox has series S and if Microsoft is pushing devs to support it, they are already struggling a lot even if it is "current" generationTurtle_Bot wrote: »(and equivalent XBox)
1