Stop patching a dying engine – The entire game needs a next-gen upgrade. It’s 2026.

VidmaVirtual · June 16

Hi everyone, and hello to the ZOS team.

We are living in 2026. Gaming technology has advanced lightyears over the last decade, yet ZOS keeps trying to squeeze the absolute last drops of life out of a heavily outdated, decade-old engine. At this point, it feels like you are just beating a dead horse, and it affects the entire game, not just one mode.

From the open world to group dungeons and trials, we can all feel the engine struggling under modern demands. Every major update brings the same structural performance issues, visual limitations, and network bottlenecks. You cannot optimize an ancient engine forever. ZOS is making a significant amount of money from this game, and players have been patient for years. It’s time to invest that revenue into rewriting or migrating ESO to a modern, powerful next-gen engine.

Look at the PvP situation as a prime example of this failure. Regarding the recent developer update about opening Blackreach as an overflow for Gray Host: opening more campaigns is just a temporary bandage on a broken system. Right now, we even have the Vengeance campaign running, and it sits completely empty most of the time because players want to play together, not be split up.

With a modern next-gen engine and modern server architecture (like server-meshing and true multi-threading), Cyrodiil could easily host up to 1500+ players at the same time, allowing everyone to play together freely without lag.

This isn't just an unrealistic theory; we have seen it work elsewhere:
* Historically in ESO: In the early years (2014-2015), Cyrodiil caps were actually around 2000 players. The engine couldn't handle it back then, so instead of upgrading the engine, ZOS just kept cutting the population caps down to the tiny numbers we have today.
* Other MMOs: Games like PlanetSide 2 have successfully hosted up to 2000 players in active combat on a single map. Guild Wars 2 handles massive WvW blobs much better, and EVE Online breaks world records with thousands of players in a single battle using advanced server tech.

Right now, when the population peaks, Gray Host gets massive queues, and when we finally get in, the performance lags so badly that skills refuse to register. Opening overflow servers doesn't fix the core issue; it just spreads the player base thin and avoids the real elephant in the room—the engine simply cannot handle modern mass gameplay.

A new engine would finally solve these global performance limits, give the whole world a fresh visual upgrade, and save everyone—both players and developers—a massive amount of frustration. We need a real, long-term solution, not more temporary band-aids.

I am saying all of this as a veteran player who loves this game. I have been playing ESO for over 11 years now, spending countless hours across both PC and PS4. I want to see this game thrive for another decade, but we cannot keep moving forward with our feet stuck in the past. It’s time for a change, ZOS.

To explain why a fundamental architectural upgrade is needed in another way, let’s use a simple everyday metaphor: A massive supermarket on a busy Friday evening.

Imagine a giant supermarket (ESO) where thousands of shoppers (players) are filling their carts with groceries. When it’s time to pay, the supermarket only has ONE SINGLE CASHIER open (the single-threaded master loop of the old engine).

No matter how many items a shopper has, or how fast they try to move, everyone has to stand in a single, massive, frustrating line. The cashier has to scan every item sequentially: Customer A, then Customer B, then Customer C. If Customer A has a complex payment issue (a heavy proc-set or multi-layered combat calculations), the entire line freezes.

The critics who argue "nothing can be fixed because player actions must be sequential" are essentially saying: "Well, a supermarket can only process one customer at a time to prevent money corruption, so having only one cashier is the only way."

But a modern next-gen engine works like a modern supermarket. It implements true multi-threading and an Entity Component System (ECS). This means the supermarket opens 32 or 64 separate checkout lanes (multi-core processors) simultaneously.
* Customer A pays for electronics at lane 1.
* Customer B pays for milk at lane 2.
* Customer C uses the self-checkout at lane 3.

They are all paying at the exact same time without interfering with each other's wallets (no race conditions, no thread locks). The main store manager (the master thread) only needs to look at the total daily sales at the very end of the night (the fixed server tick), instead of micro-managing every single scanned candy bar in real-time.

Right now, ZOS is just giving the single cashier a slightly faster barcode scanner (incremental optimization) or telling half the customers to go to an empty sister store down the road (Vengeance campaign). But the core issue remains: you cannot run a massive modern business in 2026 with a single-line checkout system. We need more lanes.

Thank you for reading.

LunaFlora · June 16

you say "This isn't just an unrealistic theory; we have seen it work elsewhere" ,
but you do not give any examples.

Which mmorpgs have remade their entire game in another engine?

Gabriel_H · June 16

You seem to be conflating engine with servers way too much.

The engine is what handles 2D/3D, animations, physics and mob/npc AI. It is at the core of the game code. The graphics are fine, the animations work, the physics work. Are there some aberrant issues? Absolutely, but that's more bugs in the game code not the engine.

The servers are what the game is hosted (in part on) split between local machine and distant server. The issues with lag, are down to ISP -> Server connections, and in no small part to ZOS having to deal with near constant DDoS attacks. The issue with Cyrodiil is the sheer number of calculations the server is having to do in such a large world area with so many combinations of procs, HoTs. DoTs, passives and AoE.

And not for nothing, but the megaservers ARE using server meshing. That's how they work.

Tandor · June 16

Ah, so what started as a general point about the game becomes another post about performance in Cyrodiil.

Please don't attempt to speak for anyone but yourself. I certainly don't "feel the engine struggling under modern demands" and never have done.

I can understand that still supporting old generation consoles may well be holding the game's development back, but I can also understand why ZOS don't want to disenfranchise those console players who can't afford to upgrade. Upgrading the game engine wouldn't resolve that particular dilemma, rather it would likely worsen it.

VidmaVirtual · June 16

You are right, I didn’t list the specific engine overhauls in the main post to keep it concise, but there are actually huge, historical precedents for this in the MMO genre:

1. Final Fantasy XIV (Version 1.0 to 2.0 "A Realm Reborn"): The original 1.0 version used a modified Crystal Tools engine that was terribly optimized (a simple flowerpot had more polygons than an entire character model). Square Enix literally threw the old engine away, built a brand new engine from scratch specifically optimized for MMORPG infrastructure, and completely relaunched the game as 2.0. It saved the franchise.

2. RuneScape: This game has completely swapped its engine multiple times over its long history. It went from the original text/basic engine to the RuneScape 2 engine, then transitioned entirely to HTML5, and later moved fully to the custom C++ "NXT" engine to drastically improve performance, draw distance, and graphics.

3. Eve Online: While they didn't launch a "new box game," CCP Games completely gutted and replaced the core graphics and physics engine (moving to Trinity, and later upgrading their server backend node tech to handle thousands of players via Time Dilation). They basically replaced the engine piece by piece while the game was live.

4. ArcheAge to ArcheAge Chronicles / Chronicle: XLGames realized their original engine couldn’t scale properly for future performance and mass combat demands, so they completely shifted their upcoming massive infrastructure to Unreal Engine 5.

My point is that when an MMO reaches a technological dead-end where optimization patches no longer fix live lag and hard server caps, a complete engine migration or rebuilding the game backend is the only real, long-term solution to survive another decade. Patching a 12-year-old engine can only go so far.

VidmaVirtual · June 16

Gabriel_H!
I think there is a slight misunderstanding here regarding how MMORPG architecture actually works.

When we talk about the "game engine" in a multiplayer game, we are not just talking about the client-side software that renders graphics, animations, and sound on your local PC or console. We are talking about the core codebase that dictates how data is simulated, processed, and structured—which fundamentally links the client and the server backend together.

You correctly pointed out that the issue in Cyrodiil is the massive amount of calculations the server has to do (procs, HoTs, DoTs, passives, AoE). But where do those calculation rules and limitations come from? They are written into the game’s core engine code.

The current ESO engine relies heavily on legacy code where a massive portion of combat simulation runs on shared, non-optimized threads. No matter how powerful the modern hardware (servers) ZOS buys, the outdated engine architecture cannot scale or split those thousands of mathematical calculations efficiently across modern multi-core server processors. That is a textbook software engine limitation, not a hardware or network infrastructure issue.

As for server meshing: ESO's Megaserver architecture uses automated shard "phasing" and zoning to distribute the world population across different visual instances. However, this is not true "Dynamic Server Meshing" like we see being developed today (where separate server nodes seamlessly pass authority over individual physical meters, items, or massive player groups back and forth in real-time within the exact same combat zone). If ESO had modern server meshing combined with a modern multithreaded backend engine, a single castle siege in Cyrodiil wouldn't choke the server node.

DDoS attacks and ISP routing definitely cause temporary stability drops, but the consistent, predictable performance degradation during prime-time Cyrodiil combat is a structural bottleneck. We aren't lacking hardware power or bandwidth; we are restricted by a decade-old engine architecture that simply wasn't designed to handle modern multi-layered combat calculations at scale.

Gabriel_H · June 16

"VidmaVirtual wrote:

My point is that when an MMO reaches a technological dead-end where optimization patches no longer fix live lag and hard server caps, a complete engine migration or rebuilding the game backend is the only real, long-term solution to survive another decade. Patching a 12-year-old engine can only go so far.

You are making a massive presumption. ESO have changed the engine over the years. The new animations, companions, the more complex boss fights, heck even the silly oddities in the NM and more would not have been possible had they not updated it.

The issue with lag outside of ISPs, sudden increased traffic, and DDoS which are 99.9% of the causes of lag, is solely found in Cyrodiil. That isn't an engine failure, it's a ruleset one. There are too many calculations for the server to handle effectively which slows the server down. You mentioned multi-threading in your OP but that isn't how a server works for an MMO, they need single-threaded cores because they need to process player actions sequentially.

Pepegrillos · June 16

Maybe have your LLM contact Zenimax so they can reach some sort of agreement on the issue.

VidmaVirtual · June 16

Tandor!
I think you misunderstood my background. I do not play on PS4 anymore. I played on PS4 about 8 years ago, but for a long time now, I have been playing exclusively on a high-end PC. I only mentioned my history to show that I have been supporting and watching this game evolve across multiple platforms for over a decade.

When I say "we can feel the engine struggling," I am referring to the global infrastructure issues that ZOS themselves have openly admitted to over the years—such as the massive combat calculation bottlenecks that affect high-end group content and mass PvP. If you mostly play solo or casual content, you might not notice it, but for anyone pushing the game's systems to their limits, the technical ceiling is very real.

Regarding the old-gen consoles (PS4/Xbox One): upgrading the game engine doesn't mean you have to force it onto 12-year-old hardware. Many modern MMOs and live-service games eventually split their client versions or stop supporting outdated generation consoles to allow the PC and current-gen (PS5/Xbox Series X) versions to fully utilize modern technology. Keeping the entire game's architectural future chained to 2013 console hardware is exactly why the technical stagnation happens.

I love this game, and that's why I want to see it adapt to 2026 standards, rather than holding back its potential.

AlienatedGoat · June 16

Rebuilding the entire game in a modern engine is a massive undertaking and not one I want to see resources wasted on. Even if it *could* be done, I staunchly believe it *shouldn't* be done, because it would leave a lot of players on underpowered hardware in the lurch.
Server architecture and upgrades would matter more for the issues you outline for PvP than prettier graphics. The game engine age plays little part in how stable the servers are or how many players can play at once. Look at EVE Online if you don't believe me.
The game started development almost 20 years ago in 2007. It's okay for ESO to look its age.

VidmaVirtual · June 16

AlienatedGoat!

I think you are missing how fundamentally interconnected a game engine and server performance actually are in an MMORPG. The "engine" isn't just a graphics card tool that makes things look pretty; the engine’s netcode and physics loop dictate exactly how the server architecture processes data.

You mentioned EVE Online, but EVE actually proves my point. CCP Games has constantly rewritten, replaced, and overhauled huge chunks of their core engine and graphics backend over the last 20 years to keep the game alive. Furthermore, EVE has a hard engine limitation where the server cannot process massive battles in real-time, which is why they had to code "Time Dilation" (TiDi) to slow the game down to 10% speed. We can't exactly slow Cyrodiil down to 10% speed for an action combat MMO.

When the core engine code is single-threaded or poorly optimized for multi-threading, buying better server hardware does absolutely nothing. The server software (which is part of the engine) simply cannot split thousands of combat calculations across modern multi-core server processors. This is a software bottleneck, not a hardware one.

As for leaving players with older hardware behind: we are in 2026. The game started development nearly 20 years ago, as you said. Chaining the entire future of an MMO to 2013-era console hardware and ancient PCs means the game will eventually suffocate under its own technical debt.

This isn't about making the graphics prettier; it's about making the game fundamentally functional at scale so that it can survive another decade. At some point, doing a massive overhaul is a necessity, not a waste of resources.

Tandor · June 16

VidmaVirtual wrote: »

<snip> Tandor!
I think you misunderstood my background. I do not play on PS4 anymore. <snip>

I wasn't referring to your background at all, I was simply making a general point about the old generation consoles holding back the game's development.

VidmaVirtual · June 16

Pepegrillos!

if my LLM could actually fix their legacy code, I’d gladly send it over to ZOS!

Jokes aside, English isn't my native language, so I used an AI tool to help translate and articulate my thoughts clearly so everyone could understand the message.

But whether the text was polished by an AI or not doesn't change the facts: the engine limitations, the Gray Host queues, and the empty Vengeance campaigns are very real problems that we, as players, face every day. Let's focus on the actual issue here.

VidmaVirtual · June 16

Tandor
Ah, I see! Thanks for clarifying. In that case, we are completely on the same page. Old-gen consoles are definitely holding back what the devs can do with the game, and at some point, ZOS will have to make a tough choice if they want the game to move forward. Appreciate your input!

Gabriel_H · June 16

VidmaVirtual wrote: »

But whether the text was polished by an AI or not doesn't change the facts: the engine limitations, the Gray Host queues, and the empty Vengeance campaigns are very real problems that we, as players, face every day. Let's focus on the actual issue here.

The problem isn't the engine, the GH queues are in part due to a concerted effort to show GH is popular, and Vengeance is far from empty.

Have you been in there in primetime?! There's as many people as in the pop-locked GH.

Blood_again · June 16

I'm tired of reading LLM-generated offers on how to make the game better.
LLM doesn't play the games it writes about. Fortunately, I think.

OP, as a veteran player who loves this game so much, why won't you have enough respect for the game to just spend some time writing your real suggestion?

VidmaVirtual · June 16

Gabriel_H!

If the Vengeance campaign was successfully absorbing the player base and solving the issue, the developers wouldn't have literally just posted a message stating that they are monitoring Gray Host queue times and considering opening Blackreach specifically for Gray Host overflow. The developers themselves openly acknowledge that the GH queues are a major problem right now.

Gray Host isn’t popular due to some "concerted effort" to make it look busy; it’s popular because it runs the traditional, standard ruleset (CP/Proc enabled) that the vast majority of the PvP community builds their characters for. Many players simply do not want to play with the restricted rulesets of other campaigns, which is why they prefer to sit in a 2-hour GH queue instead.

Furthermore, even if Vengeance does see a spike during absolute prime-time hours, the fact that these campaigns hit their population limits so quickly and trigger massive queues just proves the core issue: the population caps per campaign are incredibly low.

The only reason ZOS had to lower the player caps to these levels over the years is because the engine cannot handle more players fighting in the same zone without the simulation completely collapsing. Whether you split players into Gray Host, Vengeance, or Blackreach, the root problem remains the same—the engine limits how many of us can actually play together.

VidmaVirtual · June 16

Blood_again!

Please don’t confuse a translation tool with a lack of respect.

As I stated before, English is not my native language. If I were to write this entire post in my mother tongue, nobody on these forums would be able to read or understand it. I used an LLM exactly because I respect this community enough to want my 11 years of feedback to be articulated clearly and professionally.

The LLM didn't invent these suggestions; I did. The LLM didn't sit in 2-hour Gray Host queues for years; I did. The LLM didn't experience the game evolving from the PS4 launch to high-end PC trials; I did. The AI is just the pen—the thoughts and the frustration behind it are entirely mine as a veteran player.

Using modern tools to overcome a language barrier so I can participate in a global discussion isn't disrespectful. What is unhelpful, however, is focusing on how a post was translated rather than addressing the actual, legitimate performance issues that are hurting the game we all love.

LittleLionLeone · June 16

They clearly have a reduced budget compared to previous years, so even in a realm where it would be possible on a technical level, it wouldn't happen now.

DUTCH_REAPER · June 16

Beta player here, played up till a couple years ago. ZOS update, fix, whatever you need to do you better do it. Otherwise, imma keep spending my cash on other games.

VidmaVirtual · June 16

@LittleLionLeone

That is a very realistic and fair point. Budgets change, and rewriting a core engine is an incredibly expensive project.

However, we also have to look at the cost of doing nothing. The longer ZOS avoids fixing the core engine architecture, the more "technical debt" they accumulate. Right now, they are spending development hours and money on creating temporary workarounds—like setting up and maintaining empty overflow campaigns (Vengeance) or constantly tweaking mechanics just to keep Cyrodiil from crashing.

When long-time players and whole guilds stop playing because they are tired of 2-hour queues and unplayable lag during prime time, that also directly hurts Zenimax's revenue and the game's long-term budget.

Investing in a major technical upgrade isn't just a cost; it's an investment to ensure the game survives and remains profitable for another 10 years. At some point, patching a broken system costs more in lost players than doing the actual upgrade.

VidmaVirtual · June 16

@DUTCH_REAPER
Exactly, thank you for confirming this! This is precisely the point I was trying to make earlier.

When even Beta veterans leave the game and choose to spend their hard-earned money elsewhere because of these ongoing performance limits, ZOS is actively losing long-term revenue. Word of mouth matters, and when veterans tell people that the game's engine can't handle prime-time combat, new players hesitate to join or subscribe.

Investing in a proper technical future is the only way to keep the community, and their wallets, around for another decade. Appreciate your support!

sulima · June 16

VidmaVirtual wrote: »

Hi everyone, and hello to the ZOS team.

We are living in 2026. Gaming technology has advanced lightyears over the last decade, yet ZOS keeps trying to squeeze the absolute last drops of life out of a heavily outdated, decade-old engine. At this point, it feels like you are just beating a dead horse, and it affects the entire game, not just one mode.

From the open world to group dungeons and trials, we can all feel the engine struggling under modern demands. Every major update brings the same structural performance issues, visual limitations, and network bottlenecks. You cannot optimize an ancient engine forever. ZOS is making a significant amount of money from this game, and players have been patient for years. It’s time to invest that revenue into rewriting or migrating ESO to a modern, powerful next-gen engine.

Look at the PvP situation as a prime example of this failure. Regarding the recent developer update about opening Blackreach as an overflow for Gray Host: opening more campaigns is just a temporary bandage on a broken system. Right now, we even have the Vengeance campaign running, and it sits completely empty most of the time because players want to play together, not be split up.

With a modern next-gen engine and modern server architecture (like server-meshing and true multi-threading), Cyrodiil could easily host up to 1500+ players at the same time, allowing everyone to play together freely without lag.

This isn't just an unrealistic theory; we have seen it work elsewhere:
* Historically in ESO: In the early years (2014-2015), Cyrodiil caps were actually around 2000 players. The engine couldn't handle it back then, so instead of upgrading the engine, ZOS just kept cutting the population caps down to the tiny numbers we have today.
* Other MMOs: Games like PlanetSide 2 have successfully hosted up to 2000 players in active combat on a single map. Guild Wars 2 handles massive WvW blobs much better, and EVE Online breaks world records with thousands of players in a single battle using advanced server tech.

Right now, when the population peaks, Gray Host gets massive queues, and when we finally get in, the performance lags so badly that skills refuse to register. Opening overflow servers doesn't fix the core issue; it just spreads the player base thin and avoids the real elephant in the room—the engine simply cannot handle modern mass gameplay.

A new engine would finally solve these global performance limits, give the whole world a fresh visual upgrade, and save everyone—both players and developers—a massive amount of frustration. We need a real, long-term solution, not more temporary band-aids.

I am saying all of this as a veteran player who loves this game. I have been playing ESO for over 11 years now, spending countless hours across both PC and PS4. I want to see this game thrive for another decade, but we cannot keep moving forward with our feet stuck in the past. It’s time for a change, ZOS.

Thank you for reading.

The original poster is entirely correct, and the arguments defending this aging engine overlook how modern MMO architecture actually works.

The standard excuses of it being too expensive or technically impossible no longer hold weight.

The demand for a next-gen upgrade is completely justified.

A common counterargument in this thread is that performance issues are simply down to user latency, routing, and local ISP constraints. However, global internet infrastructure has evolved massively since the game's inception, with fiber-optic networks and advanced data routing becoming the standard baseline for the player base.

The crippling lag in high-population campaigns like Grey Host has nothing to do with consumer-side networking. It is a fundamental server-side architectural bottleneck. The current engine processes players as heavy, monolithic data structures where positions, intricate gear sets, passive skills, and conditional proc triggers are calculated sequentially in a single line.
Because these variables are tightly tangled together, the server cannot split the workload across modern multi-core processors without causing data corruption. Forcing multithreading onto this legacy framework causes thread locks and crashes, which is exactly why recent physical server hardware upgrades failed to fix Cyrodiil.

The bottleneck is the software code, and no amount of incremental patching can fix a system that defies parallel computing.
Other posters argue that a new engine requires rebuilding the game from scratch, triggering a fatal content drought. This misunderstands modern development pipelines. The studio does not need a single monolithic engine; they can implement a hybrid frontend and backend shift that separates visuals from mathematical calculations.

By utilizing Unreal Engine 5 as a visual frontend, the game can deliver the visual rebirth and responsive animations players want. Simultaneously, a cloud-based server backend utilizing server-meshing can dynamically chop maps like Cyrodiil into modular grids managed by dedicated cloud nodes.

Inside these nodes, an Entity Component System can unpack heavy player objects into flat memory tables, allowing server CPUs to calculate thousands of complex variables in parallel. This hybrid approach handles full build freedom and massive player caps simultaneously, eliminating the need for forced, watered-down campaign templates.

To those arguing that an upgrade does not make financial sense for a business, remember that this is not a struggling indie project. The game is an absolute financial powerhouse for Microsoft, having generated over two billion dollars in lifetime revenue while continuously pulling in an average of fifteen million dollars every single month.

The player base has spent a decade fiercely supporting this ecosystem through subscriptions, chapters, and Crown Store spending. The community has more than paid for the studio to reinvest back into the game's core architecture. Continuing to patchwork a heavily bottlenecked framework while charging modern pricing is no longer sustainable for a title generating this level of gross return.

Investing in a next-generation architecture carries capital risk, but it is a necessary, respectful reinvestment in the very community that built and funded this multi-billion-dollar empire. The original poster is entirely right, and it is time for a next-gen upgrade.

VidmaVirtual · June 16

@sulima

Wow, thank you so much for this incredibly detailed and technically precise breakdown! You explained the exact core of the issue perfectly.

You hit the nail on the head regarding the "monolithic data structures" and why the hardware upgrades failed to fix Cyrodiil. Many people don't realize that if the software code itself defies parallel computing, buying better server hardware is like putting a racing engine into a car with square wheels—it’s just not going to move any faster.

Also, thank you for bringing up the actual financial figures. Generating over 2 billion dollars in lifetime revenue and pulling in 15 million every single month means ZOS and Microsoft absolutely have the capital for a hybrid frontend/backend shift. As you beautifully said, reinvesting into a next-generation architecture isn't just a capital risk; it's a matter of respect toward the community that funded this multi-billion-dollar empire for over a decade.

Having support from players who understand modern development pipelines like this gives me hope that the community can finally push ZOS to stop using temporary band-aids and actually look toward the future. Brilliant post, thank you!

LadyGP · June 16

VidmaVirtual wrote: »

Hi everyone, and hello to the ZOS team.

We are living in 2026. Gaming technology has advanced lightyears over the last decade, yet ZOS keeps trying to squeeze the absolute last drops of life out of a heavily outdated, decade-old engine. At this point, it feels like you are just beating a dead horse, and it affects the entire game, not just one mode.

From the open world to group dungeons and trials, we can all feel the engine struggling under modern demands. Every major update brings the same structural performance issues, visual limitations, and network bottlenecks. You cannot optimize an ancient engine forever. ZOS is making a significant amount of money from this game, and players have been patient for years. It’s time to invest that revenue into rewriting or migrating ESO to a modern, powerful next-gen engine.

Look at the PvP situation as a prime example of this failure. Regarding the recent developer update about opening Blackreach as an overflow for Gray Host: opening more campaigns is just a temporary bandage on a broken system. Right now, we even have the Vengeance campaign running, and it sits completely empty most of the time because players want to play together, not be split up.

With a modern next-gen engine and modern server architecture (like server-meshing and true multi-threading), Cyrodiil could easily host up to 1500+ players at the same time, allowing everyone to play together freely without lag.

This isn't just an unrealistic theory; we have seen it work elsewhere:
* Historically in ESO: In the early years (2014-2015), Cyrodiil caps were actually around 2000 players. The engine couldn't handle it back then, so instead of upgrading the engine, ZOS just kept cutting the population caps down to the tiny numbers we have today.
* Other MMOs: Games like PlanetSide 2 have successfully hosted up to 2000 players in active combat on a single map. Guild Wars 2 handles massive WvW blobs much better, and EVE Online breaks world records with thousands of players in a single battle using advanced server tech.

Right now, when the population peaks, Gray Host gets massive queues, and when we finally get in, the performance lags so badly that skills refuse to register. Opening overflow servers doesn't fix the core issue; it just spreads the player base thin and avoids the real elephant in the room—the engine simply cannot handle modern mass gameplay.

A new engine would finally solve these global performance limits, give the whole world a fresh visual upgrade, and save everyone—both players and developers—a massive amount of frustration. We need a real, long-term solution, not more temporary band-aids.

I am saying all of this as a veteran player who loves this game. I have been playing ESO for over 11 years now, spending countless hours across both PC and PS4. I want to see this game thrive for another decade, but we cannot keep moving forward with our feet stuck in the past. It’s time for a change, ZOS.

Thank you for reading.

You gonna pay for it?

VidmaVirtual · June 16

@LadyGP

We already did.

Between my 11 years of subscription fees, buying chapters, and supporting the Crown Store—alongside millions of other dedicated players—the community has more than funded this game.

ESO has generated over $2 billion in lifetime revenue. Reinvesting a fraction of those massive profits back into the core technology to keep the product functional isn't the players' financial responsibility—it's standard business practice for a multi-billion-dollar live-service empire.

Aislinna · June 17

VidmaVirtual wrote: »

@LadyGP

We already did.

Between my 11 years of subscription fees, buying chapters, and supporting the Crown Store—alongside millions of other dedicated players—the community has more than funded this game.

ESO has generated over $2 billion in lifetime revenue. Reinvesting a fraction of those massive profits back into the core technology to keep the product functional isn't the players' financial responsibility—it's standard business practice for a multi-billion-dollar live-service empire.

This $2 billion revenue figure, while good, is not quite as impressive as it may sound. Revenue is the total amount of money a business earns from the sale of its goods or services before any expenses are deducted. ESO's lifetime has been 19 years so far and during that time they have to pay expenses like salaries, office space, equipment/hardware purchases, taxes, investor returns, etc.

VidmaVirtual · June 17

@Aislinna

While you are completely correct about the difference between revenue and net profit, your timeline and context are slightly off.

First, ESO has been live since 2014, meaning that $2 billion was generated over 12 years, not 19. Averaging over $160 million in revenue per year for over a decade is an incredible financial performance for any live-service game, easily putting it in the top tier of profitable MMORPGs globally.

Second, nobody is claiming that ZOS has $2 billion in pure cash sitting in a vault. Of course there are taxes, salaries, and operational costs. However, we are talking about a studio owned by Zenimax Media, which was acquired by Microsoft—one of the wealthiest tech titans on the planet—for $7.5 billion.

Major technical overhauls and infrastructure upgrades in the tech industry are capital expenditures (CapEx). Large corporations don't fund next-gen upgrades out of a single year's leftover pocket money; they fund them because investing in the core architecture of a highly profitable asset ensures its revenue stream remains stable for the next decade.

When a game consistently brings in over $15 million a month, allowing it to slowly degrade due to technical debt because "upgrades cost money" isn't good business management—it's just neglecting a premium product that the community is actively funding every single month.

Vulkunne · June 17

It all sounds really good and perhaps one day this will happen. But you can't do this number of changes without undoing what is. Just sayin'.

Aislinna · June 17

VidmaVirtual wrote: »

@Aislinna

While you are completely correct about the difference between revenue and net profit, your timeline and context are slightly off.

First, ESO has been live since 2014, meaning that $2 billion was generated over 12 years, not 19. Averaging over $160 million in revenue per year for over a decade is an incredible financial performance for any live-service game, easily putting it in the top tier of profitable MMORPGs globally.

Second, nobody is claiming that ZOS has $2 billion in pure cash sitting in a vault. Of course there are taxes, salaries, and operational costs. However, we are talking about a studio owned by Zenimax Media, which was acquired by Microsoft—one of the wealthiest tech titans on the planet—for $7.5 billion.

Major technical overhauls and infrastructure upgrades in the tech industry are capital expenditures (CapEx). Large corporations don't fund next-gen upgrades out of a single year's leftover pocket money; they fund them because investing in the core architecture of a highly profitable asset ensures its revenue stream remains stable for the next decade.

When a game consistently brings in over $15 million a month, allowing it to slowly degrade due to technical debt because "upgrades cost money" isn't good business management—it's just neglecting a premium product that the community is actively funding every single month.

While the game has been live since 2014, the company and the development expenses of the game started in 2007, so yes, the "lifetime" is 19 years.

VidmaVirtual · June 17

@Aislinna

That is not how business accounting works. You cannot amortize active live-service revenue over pre-launch development years when the product wasn't even on the market generating sales.

The initial development costs from 2007 to 2014 were capital investments that were cleared and paid off a long time ago within the game's first few successful years.

We are discussing the current financial health of the game in 2026. Evaluating a live-service title's ability to fund a modern upgrade by dragging in pre-launch sunk costs from nearly two decades ago is a massive reach. The reality remains unchanged: the game generates immense monthly revenue right now, and reinvesting in its core technology is standard product lifecycle management.