How Well Does The Elder Scrolls Online Run On Your PC?

[Djentleman]

ZOS is promising to give players ~8 new zones with each having a new tier of content over the course of a year free with the sub, so if we're doing a fair comparison to WoW and other sub-based MMO's you can cut $60 from the annual sub cost.
That means that you're paying ~$10 sub fee per month relative to the amount of content you would traditionally receive.
Obviously we'll need to wait and see if they can stick to that schedule after releasing craglorn.
If they do there should be nobody left questioning the value of the sub for this game.

"Free with sub"... Wait WHAT? LOL

Yeah as in you don't have to pay for a formal expansion because they don't have any plans to make one. You get expansion content with the sub forever with no other cost.

The point being that no Free to play games produce the amount of expansion content that WoW does and WoW charges you $60 for it. ESO promises to give you more than that over the same eriod of time with no box fee.
That effectively means that you are getting more content than any F2P or B2P game can deliver at a lower cost than any sub game

I'd rather buy expansion packs with no sub fee.
Probably cheaper that way.

 

[AnEwG]

It is nice to see this game working relatively well on AMD processors when compared to Skyrim which certainly had a little bit too many issues running on them.

 

[Sakkura]

It is nice to see this game working relatively well on AMD processors when compared to Skyrim which certainly had a little bit too many issues running on them.

I wouldn't say it does well on AMD processors, given the fact that the FX-8350 struggles to keep up with the Core i3-3220.

 

[AnEwG]

It is nice to see this game working relatively well on AMD processors when compared to Skyrim which certainly had a little bit too many issues running on them.

I wouldn't say it does well on AMD processors, given the fact that the FX-8350 struggles to keep up with the Core i3-3220.

I said relatively as when compared with the same processors running Skyrim. The FX-8350 doesn't really struggle in anyway when compared with the i3, unless we are looking at different charts, and seeing the fact that the game doesn't scale much going from an i3 to an i5 to an i7, I would say that the poorly threaded game engine is the culprit here. The only reason the IB i5 has a higher score than the i3 is the 3.7 turbo frequency which boosts single threaded performance over the i3 and the Haswell i7 is overclocked to 4.4 GHz as well.

 

[Sakkura]

I said relatively as when compared with the same processors running Skyrim.

The FX-8350 does better in Skyrim than ESO. ~60-80 FPS in Tom's review.

 

[AnEwG]

I said relatively as when compared with the same processors running Skyrim.

The FX-8350 does better in Skyrim than ESO. ~60-80 FPS in Tom's review.

The fps deltas and latencies between Intel and AMD processors in Skyrim are much larger, that is what I meant. Also fps is not a real indicator of smooth game play by its own.
Also the benchmark you are referring to was using the GTX 680, a two tiers higher GPU than the R9 270 which is used in this review.

 

[Sakkura]

The fps deltas and latencies between Intel and AMD processors in Skyrim are much larger, that is what I meant. Also fps is not a real indicator of smooth game play by its own.
Also the benchmark you are referring to was using the GTX 680, a two tiers higher GPU than the R9 270 which is used in this review.

Each test is largely CPU-bound, so it doesn't really matter what GPU is used. It just has to be fast enough to make the game CPU-bound.

 

[AnEwG]

The fps deltas and latencies between Intel and AMD processors in Skyrim are much larger, that is what I meant. Also fps is not a real indicator of smooth game play by its own.
Also the benchmark you are referring to was using the GTX 680, a two tiers higher GPU than the R9 270 which is used in this review.

Each test is largely CPU-bound, so it doesn't really matter what GPU is used. It just has to be fast enough to make the game CPU-bound.

The difference in fps between the GTX 760 which is even weaker than the GTX 680 and the R9 270 at ultra @ 1080p is 10 fps minimum and 16 fps average. If what you are saying is true then the game wouldn't scale higher on anything stronger than the R9 270 which was used in the CPU benchmark. Although the game is more CPU bound it still benefits from a stronger GPU. Also by your same logic the Intel chips are doing worse in this game than they do in Skyrim, the i5-3470 for example which is slightly slower than the i5-3550 was scoring an average fps of 85.7 at ultra settings while the i5-3550 merely manages 46.3 average fps. The FX-8350 scored 67.4 average fps in Scyrim while we see it here scoring an average of 41.6 fps. If the stronger GPU doesn't really matter like you said, then seeing how the delta has decreased between an AMD FX-8350 and an i5 chip from 18 fps to 5 fps proves my point. The low benchmark scores for all chips can be attributed to an optimization issue seeing how the games doesn't scale that much on processors with larger number of threads.

 

[Sakkura]

The difference in fps between the GTX 760 which is even weaker than the GTX 680 and the R9 270 at ultra @ 1080p is 10 fps minimum and 16 fps average. If what you are saying is true then the game wouldn't scale higher on anything stronger than the R9 270 which was used in the CPU benchmark. Although the game is more CPU bound it still benefits from a stronger GPU. Also by your same logic the Intel chips are doing worse in this game than they do in Skyrim, the i5-3470 for example which is slightly slower than the i5-3550 was scoring an average fps of 85.7 at ultra settings while the i5-3550 merely manages 46.3 average fps. The FX-8350 scored 67.4 average fps in Scyrim while we see it here scoring an average of 41.6 fps. If the stronger GPU doesn't really matter like you said, then seeing how the delta has decreased between an AMD FX-8350 and an i5 chip from 18 fps to 5 fps proves my point. The low benchmark scores for all chips can be attributed to an optimization issue seeing how the games doesn't scale that much on processors with larger number of threads.

No, all it shows is that ESO is more CPU-intensive than Skyrim.

 

[AnEwG]

The difference in fps between the GTX 760 which is even weaker than the GTX 680 and the R9 270 at ultra @ 1080p is 10 fps minimum and 16 fps average. If what you are saying is true then the game wouldn't scale higher on anything stronger than the R9 270 which was used in the CPU benchmark. Although the game is more CPU bound it still benefits from a stronger GPU. Also by your same logic the Intel chips are doing worse in this game than they do in Skyrim, the i5-3470 for example which is slightly slower than the i5-3550 was scoring an average fps of 85.7 at ultra settings while the i5-3550 merely manages 46.3 average fps. The FX-8350 scored 67.4 average fps in Scyrim while we see it here scoring an average of 41.6 fps. If the stronger GPU doesn't really matter like you said, then seeing how the delta has decreased between an AMD FX-8350 and an i5 chip from 18 fps to 5 fps proves my point. The low benchmark scores for all chips can be attributed to an optimization issue seeing how the games doesn't scale that much on processors with larger number of threads.

No, all it shows is that ESO is more CPU-intensive than Skyrim.

Maybe that is all you can see or want to see but that is certainly isn't what it shows. When Skyrim was first released it also performed similarly until Bethesda fixed some of the game's optimization issues. So If by CPU intensive you mean poorly threaded/optimized then sure it is. It obviously shows that the game only benefits from higher clocks/IPC than from a larger number of cores. Also whether you like to admit it or not the fps deltas between AMD and Intel chips are smaller than the way they were in Skyrim. Just go check the FX-8350 review and the review they made when Skyrim was first released here on Tom's and while you are at it check the graphs in this review as well before denying the obvious results they show.

 

[logainofhades]

I think using the graphics card they did, is the reason for the very close FPS numbers. The game was still GPU bound at that point.

 

[Traciatim]

I said relatively as when compared with the same processors running Skyrim.

The FX-8350 does better in Skyrim than ESO. ~60-80 FPS in Tom's review.

I think using the graphics card they did, is the reason for the very close FPS numbers. The game was still GPU bound at that point.

It's like they didn't care at all if the CPU scaling test was even remotely accurate. Who turns on AA for a CPU test?

 

[thaares]

During beta I had 30 fps in cities on fx-8350 and r9 290, wtf

although outside i had 60-70 fps

 

[AnEwG]

During beta I had 30 fps in cities on fx-8350 and r9 290, wtf

although outside i had 60-70 fps

And now?

 

[thaares]

During beta I had 30 fps in cities on fx-8350 and r9 290, wtf

although outside i had 60-70 fps

And now?

I haven't bought the game, cant afford the subscription atm

 

[hotroderx]

I know the folks complaining about paying $15 a month make me laugh. What do you expect a handout? Guess what it takes money to manage servers and hire people to manage the game. Unless you think that is free then you have issues.I still pay SOE $15 a month for my Everquest account. Lets see if this game last half as long.

Tell that to League of Legends(Riot) and Guild Wars 2(NCsoft).

I never played LoL so I cant comment. As far as GW2 goes... I can comment there I had around 1000hrs invested in the game and stopped playing. The game gradually became more and more Cash Shop Focused. The game was built around vanity and everything vanity was being added to the cash shop. Most new armor sets where cash shop items that cost 10 dollars each. When they couldn't get you on vanity. They lowered drop rates of items to 1-2% then added in restriction to farming. Basically after farming a hour or two. Drop rates would be reduced further thus forcing you to buy on the AH. While gold was semi easy to get it always came out as more cost/time effective to buy gold directly from NCsofts cash shop. Please dont kid your self they micro transaction the game every single way they can. They most likely make more off micro transactions then they would subs.

As far as the "content goes" ... most of it contained very superficial story lines and where pure zerg content. Add on top of that its 99.9% temporary content that tended to be extremely buggy does not help. Most the bugs in new content where ignored because they be around a max of 4 weeks (most the time 2 weeks). There where major parts of the game that have/had been bugged since release and even bugged during a developer preview (they where still bugged when I left in January). Two old sayings come to mind

You get what you pay for and nothing in life is free.

 

[TyrOd]

I know the folks complaining about paying $15 a month make me laugh. What do you expect a handout? Guess what it takes money to manage servers and hire people to manage the game. Unless you think that is free then you have issues.I still pay SOE $15 a month for my Everquest account. Lets see if this game last half as long.

Tell that to League of Legends(Riot) and Guild Wars 2(NCsoft).

I never played LoL so I cant comment. As far as GW2 goes... I can comment there I had around 1000hrs invested in the game and stopped playing. The game gradually became more and more Cash Shop Focused. The game was built around vanity and everything vanity was being added to the cash shop. Most new armor sets where cash shop items that cost 10 dollars each. When they couldn't get you on vanity. They lowered drop rates of items to 1-2% then added in restriction to farming. Basically after farming a hour or two. Drop rates would be reduced further thus forcing you to buy on the AH. While gold was semi easy to get it always came out as more cost/time effective to buy gold directly from NCsofts cash shop. Please dont kid your self they micro transaction the game every single way they can. They most likely make more off micro transactions then they would subs.

As far as the "content goes" ... most of it contained very superficial story lines and where pure zerg content. Add on top of that its 99.9% temporary content that tended to be extremely buggy does not help. Most the bugs in new content where ignored because they be around a max of 4 weeks (most the time 2 weeks). There where major parts of the game that have/had been bugged since release and even bugged during a developer preview (they where still bugged when I left in January). Two old sayings come to mind

You get what you pay for and nothing in life is free.

Also, Craglorn alone is as much content as GW2 put out in a year. Considering it is a full zone and getting through a Veteran rank zone currently takes 10-20 hours not including dungeons, just 4 o these size expansions(~6 months) is as big as any WoW expansion that takes 2 years on average to release.

 

[TyrOd]

ZOS is promising to give players ~8 new zones with each having a new tier of content over the course of a year free with the sub, so if we're doing a fair comparison to WoW and other sub-based MMO's you can cut $60 from the annual sub cost.
That means that you're paying ~$10 sub fee per month relative to the amount of content you would traditionally receive.
Obviously we'll need to wait and see if they can stick to that schedule after releasing craglorn.
If they do there should be nobody left questioning the value of the sub for this game.

"Free with sub"... Wait WHAT? LOL

Yeah as in you don't have to pay for a formal expansion because they don't have any plans to make one. You get expansion content with the sub forever with no other cost.

The point being that no Free to play games produce the amount of expansion content that WoW does and WoW charges you $60 for it. ESO promises to give you more than that over the same eriod of time with no box fee.
That effectively means that you are getting more content than any F2P or B2P game can deliver at a lower cost than any sub game

I'd rather buy expansion packs with no sub fee.
Probably cheaper that way.

It's cheaper if you want less content. Craglorn by itself is like a whole tier of content from one of WoW's expansions. That means you're getting a full expansion worth of content every 6 months instead of the typical 2 years that WoW does.
That translates to ~$120 a year or ~$10 a month worth of content making the sub fee effectively ~$5 a month.

So the choice is not between $15 sub and a $60 expansion every couple years it's between a $5 sub and $60 every 6 months.
In other words ESO is MORE expensive but you also get a ton more content.

So when people say they don't want to sub they are effectively saying they don't want to buy content that quickly in this game.
I have a feeling that after 2-3 craglorn size patches, people will come around.

 

[logainofhades]

Who cares how well the shit game runs lmao!!!! I bought the piece of shit an trust me it's not worth a penny. Just go find a better game to spend your money on. This thing is a money pit an I think it's safe to say most people who play these MMO's don't have a job an probably shouldn't be forking out the money for it anyways. Use your welfare check for something else like a exercise plan at the gym lmao

You mad bro? Hate to break it to you, but I have a job and play WoW. I already have a gym membership, at a discount thanks to work.

 

[Novuake]

ENOUGH now with the profanity.

Mods please step in here.

 

[Zombie615]

ENOUGH now with the profanity.

Mods please step in here.

enough with the profanity? Dude grow up... a word is a word. I don't know why people give such strong vulgar means to a few letters organized in a certain order. Did the words I say hurt you or something? jesus christ

 

[Zombie615]

Who cares how well the crap game runs lmao!!!! I bought the piece of crap an trust me it's not worth a penny. Just go find a better game to spend your money on. This thing is a money pit an I think it's safe to say most people who play these MMO's don't have a job an probably shouldn't be forking out the money for it anyways. Use your welfare check for something else like a exercise plan at the gym lmao

You mad bro? Hate to break it to you, but I have a job and play WoW. I already have a gym membership, at a discount thanks to work.

I didn't say everyone was the same. I know there are some responsible people out there that take care of business before playing games.

 

[Novuake]

Zombie615, we have rules on this forum.

I could not give a damn. However, others might mind, and you need to consider that.

As you so aptly put it, "grow up" applies to your lack in understanding my above statement.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[Zombie615]

Well considering I only used the word "crap" I don't see how it's a big deal. People say hell all the time an it's suppose to be a profane term as well. Though we all know it's true meaning. Just as the word I used has a true meaning...."feces" or "Poop" I could understand if I was using a ton of profane words that were actually vulgar those of which I'm not listing for the sake of the forum rules and pointing them towards a specific person. Though really I don't see why crap is a big deal.

If it makes you feel better I'll edit my post....

 

[Novuake]

Well considering I only used the word "crap" I don't see how it's a big deal. People say hell all the time an it's suppose to be a profane term as well. Though we all know it's true meaning. Just as the word I used has a true meaning...."feces" or "Poop" I could understand if I was using a ton of profane words that were actually vulgar those of which I'm not listing for the sake of the forum rules and pointing them towards a specific person. Though really I don't see why crap is a big deal.

If it makes you feel better I'll edit my post....

You do realize it CLEARLY says you edited it RIGHT?

Stop now, you are just looking to argue with EVERYONE, over EVERYTHING. Go join a debate somewhere. I won't oblige.