Elder Scrolls Online Director Says The Nintendo Switch Isn't "Powerful Enough" To Run The Game

I'm never much into MMO games so no lose for me.

Can't say much except that I agree. Not every multiplat AAA needs a Switch port.

That’s cool. I’ll see them on Switch 2.

We already got the only Elder Scrolls game worth having right now, the online game isn't even something I wanted.

isn't Skyrim on Switch? aren't we getting Blades as well?

they don't have the budget to port it. the game isn't that great and would get lost on the shuffle of other games that are better.

Where there's a will there's a way. Not much will in those comments. Probably thinks it would be a waste of time and no one would bother to play it.

Now where's GTA 5?? That game just makes too much sense yet......

Obviously. If Nintendo wants bigger 3rd party games they have to focus on power like they used to.

“What we're most confused about in regards to ESO is why it's gone from being a storage issue to a power issue.”

I think you might be taking the statement of it not being a “fit” for the Switch too literally, it was likely always a power issue. Whether The Witcher 3 works or not is beside the point, MMO’s have always been a CPU-bound affair from my experience. There’s so much netcode that has to be processed client-side and reflected on the screen at once, it’s not surprising that the Tegra CPU cores just aren’t up to the task.

Understandable. And i’m not really a fan of The Elders Scrolls Online, so no biggie for me.

@JayJ
Woah wait a second, when did we get Morrowind?

While ESO is pretty cool, I don’t mind MMO’s skipping the Switch, I agree most don’t fit the Switch as well, which is likely what these devs are talking about, not file size NL.
That being said, if someone could somehow get Skywind and Skyblivion on Switch, that’d be sick!

I'd still love if they'd port over Oblivion.

Then stream it? It’s an online only title anyway.

Correction: "TESO is a mess and we can't be bothered to optimize it." I've read that it's over 170GB on PC. That's just absurd. Much more impressive looking games, even on PC are much much smaller. Even with the voice acting and higher resolution support. I mean look at The Witcher 3 on PC, 35GB. You're telling me that TESO is almost 5 times as big? BS. Someone at Bethesda doesn't know what they are doing.

But I agree it's probably not worth rebuilding and properly optimizing the game for Switch. MMOs have never been as successful on consoles as they are on PC.

Powerful or not, nobody was asking for MMO games on the Switch anyways. Keep both Failout 76 and Elder Scam Online away from the Switch.

I couldn't care less

I havent played ESO before as I'm not an MMO guy, but is there any reason why people seem to not like ESO that much in this comments section?

It's no Fallout 76, that's for sure...

"It is one of the largest games ever made, and it just will not fit on Switch."

Ahaha, Warframe, WItcher 3, DCU Online and even your own Doom, Skyrim and Wolfenstein say otherwise. But by all means, please keep making up for the fact that you just can't be bothered to optimize your older games and digging an even bigger pit for yourself than what you already have like all the other Triple A developers are doing.

Honestly, one of the cool things about being a Switch owner, who has been through the third party ups and downs, is that I don’t get mad when a game doesn’t make it over, but excited by those that do. I’ve seen my share of droughts on Nintendo consoles, and.....Switch doesn’t have them.

@Heavyarms55 Yeah I feel a lot of devs are sloppy now with file sizes. I've seen Blizzard put out patches that are hundreds of megs for small bug fixes because of bad file structures making whole files have to be patched while steam usually fairs better.

I have Elders Scrolls Online on Xbox One, and i agree. There is no way it can run on Switch without lagging all the time.

I never understood why Switch only got 4.GB RAM when 8.GB made most sense.

@JayJ wasn't oblivion better then skyrim?

@TechaNinja Yeah, I feel devs know many PCs and consoles now have 1TB and more of storage so who cares, right? The thing is, devoting 10-20% of your hard drive to one game is kind of absurd.

Just like how modern day bethesda doesnt have powerful enough brains to make a new fudging engine

@BanjoPickles

Amen to that. If anything, this year has had TOO much. Which is a great problem to have.

And missing out on an MMO (an average one at that) is no big loss. Would love to see an updated Morrowind, Oblivion and Fallout 3 and New Vegas though.

Even if it was coming to Switch I doubt I would find the time to play it, what with the steller line-up of games coming out.

@JayJ you have Morrowind? Cool.

Elder Scrolls Online install size is around 110-150.GB on consoles with all DLC.

He probably just looked at the specs and decided not to try. Without will, there's no way.

@Kinpatsu

I’m overwhelmed, brother! I mean, Astral Chains on Friday, Mana Collection next Tuesday, Link’s Awakening in a few weeks, Daemon X Machina less than two weeks later, followed by Witcher 3, then Luigi’s Mansion 3, then Pokémon, Doom Eternal......and I still haven’t gotten around to playing Fire Emblem, Wolfenstein Youngblood, Mortal Kombat 11, Friday the 13th (my favorite horror franchise, so I’m excited to play the game), Warframe, and so many others!

Argh!

@Heavyarms55 Gears 4 on pc is like 85 GB or so.

MCC on xbox one I think is like around 100GB or fairly close to that. Imagine how big the full collection will be when it fully comes out on PC

O O F

Its just fine skipping it rather than making a complete bare bone-version. The Bethesda support for Switch is good anyways.

I guess the Switch will be strong enough, but the crappy Game & Engine isn't ready for such Hardware.

To be honstest - Other Online Games like Warframe or DC Universe are awesome on Switch.

But even if the Graphic on ESO is REALLY dated, the game still runs like poo on XBOX One S. Framedrops to below 15 alot of times. So it might be an Engine / Gamecode Problem, rather than the lack of Hardware power ..

I mean, the xbox one does have alot of crappy ports with bad framerate, but we all know how "powerfull" the xbox one can be, if treated right. like the switch. the ESO engine is an unoptimized PC thing... and they still struggle to get it right on xbox (probably also on ps4). so, it's better they skip that lagging mess on switch

No, Bethesda. The Switch is plenty powerful enough: You just can't be bothered to optimise the game for the console. It's not really that I care that it isn't coming to the Switch, I just hate it when companies call the Switch underpowered.

If Nintendo made more powerful consoles, I wouldn't feel the need for a second console. Oh well, I guess they got my $ anyway. The thing is, they could have had more of it.

@Heavyarms55 Witcher 3 is 54gb on my PC so no not 35gb.

@Reignmaker

Switch is a handheld, it can't be as powerful as a 40W console, even if it would cost 500USD, there wouldn't be any existing chipset on the market wich could produce PS4 graphics with a handheld. One just have to look at memory bandwitdt, they couldn't possibly use gddr5 memory, NIntendo already uses the best ram on the market for a handheld; lpddr4 and lpddr4x, but there simply doesn't exist low-powered discreet memory for embedded devices that matches memorys used for computers and home consoles.

In other news: Elder Scrolls Online Director is a Moron.

More news at 7. This has been Eyewitness News, and I'm Dandy Bugman.

@Rayquaza2510 Steam lists it as 35GB, that's where I got the number.

@Heavyarms55 I know, most people get their numbers that way, but it does not represent how large the game really is.

Goes both ways, I've seen games requiring more space on paper than in reality.

Told you already the 4gb ram is not helping. At least 8gb! It takes a lot away when there is a more demanding game than Mario games itself. Nintendo once again shoots in his own foot. Which is good. I hope they will learn their lesson. Come up with a proper hardware! BTW here in HOlland your hardware cost now € 345. Excuse me? That's as much as PS4 pro and you get 1TB and 4K gaming. Your few Mario games doesn't cut here you know. It's still too few. WE NEED UPGRADE!

Good! We don't need Bethesda's broken games tarnishing the Switch's Library.

I don't want the Switch to be a haven for online dependent games anyway. It's not a good match.

No hard feelings tho, these guys are awesome

@Liam_Doolan they can keep ESO if Nintendo just can get Square to release DQ10 in the West. I'd rather spend money playing DQ online

Yes, while the storage question matters big time (80 Gb + the console patches can be L.A. Noires on their own, unlike PC ones allegedly governed by different platform permissions), the power one can be surprising - the game ran on GPD Win1 for people (most likely from a USB drive at that!) and my "new" Lifebook a514, while possibly a somewhat more biased example after a RAM bump, handles it without issues so far, too. Then again, the GPD videos may be old and my own PC copy is only up to Morrowind (since it's already part of the base package); who knows what kind of stuff the subsequent expansions have introduced since.

Still a bummer since this seemed like the only big TES entry Bethesda was in the mood to port anywhere. Pretty sure I read about Howard ruling out any Morrowind revisits, and IIRC any Oblivion ones as well (although Oblivion did make it to consoles, didn't it? Heck, they even considered a PSP port for a while).

@Narrator1 once you reach a certain age and its time management consequences, all games start needing a Switch port, AAA or otherwise. Whether all such ports are feasible for the developers and publishers to indulge in at a given period is a different and very case-by-case story.

Wish we had Classic WoW on Switch. Its a much better MMO than ESO. Problem is controls and social aspects (typing etc)

"Wouldn't fit" is the better explanation compared to "just not powerful enough." The game's local footprint is enormous.

"Nintendo won't allow us to charge a monthly subscription fee," would be another reasonable explanation, that they have probably been told NOT to talk about.

Aside from those, it'd be a right hassle getting the game to run acceptably. And doubly so, if they'd want all the creature comforts of the other versions. It's unlikely to be a profit deal.

@Aya-chan it is underpowered. the switch is a minor upgrade from the wii u era which wasn't a huge upgrade from the xbox 360 or ps3. If the switch wasn't underpowered, no games would need to be downgraded to a point were resolution is way lower than 720p docked.

MMOs like ESO and FFXIV are very very CPU intensive. To compare this game to W3 is kind of silly. PS4Pro chugs a bit in FFXIV when you're in a city with a ton of players running around, but my old laptop with an i7 but mediocre GPU doesn't even break a sweat in those areas.

the cpu of the switch couldn't handle the game. ESO is very CPU bound because of all the netcode. Trying to run this on switch would result in a clunky, low resolution game.

"Powerful Enough" Nvidia Tegra X1 Maxwell has 256 CUDA Core @ 786 Mhz Equivalent Nvidia Geforce GT 1030 has 384 CUDA Core @ 1228 MHz. Xbox One S Equivalent Nvidia Geforce GTX 1650. Nintendo Switch can run Smite and Fortnite. You Know What? Do the Math.

I have realised that not every game should or can be played on the Switch. And there is a limit to what a Switch owner should accept from a game that has to be downgraded to work on the Switch.

Nintendo has given us the Switch, it could give us a pro but has instead given us a Lite, in the hope it appeals to 2 and 3d owners.

My eye is on the PS5, I will play third party games how they are ment to be played and keep the Switch for Nintendo and portable games.

@Spoony_Tech

Have you played GTAV on a ps3 or 360? It's HORRIBLE. Barely the same game as the twins/pc.

I'd take san andreas but V wouldn't be done justice on the Switch.

Not every game has to be cut down to soupy mine craft-ish graphics and shoe-horned onto the switch. N could've made a competing console but has decided to not keep up and go their own way after making too many bad decisions with the n64/gc.

@Aya-chan @SeantheDon29 Strange comments. I think Bethesda proved long ago how commited they are to the Switch. With the quality of their releases so far they are by far the best 3rd party on the console. If they thought the Switch could run this game to a high standard and do well then they would bring it over but clearly they don't. To deny the Switch is underpowered compared to the other consoles is to deny simple facts. Just because it can run certain games after a lot of optimisation doesn't necessarily mean it can run every game.

Oh that is very interesting! I can get ESO to run on a PC half as powerful as the Nintendo Switch (albeit will look bad, but you can still grind at 30 FPS, 720, lowest settings on a weak laptop with a GPU). I’d rather have Final Fantasy XIV or XI with touchpad support.

@PKBegley Yeah who needs Doom 2016,Doom Eternal, Wolfenstein 2,Wolfenstein Young blood and Skyrim aka some of the best games on the system. Without Bethesda's brilliant support, the Switch's 3rd party library would be much weaker.

@Racthet916 - No, because he specifically says that it would only work with a streaming service. He's talking about storage, which is also the only way this makes sense. It's 170GB on the PC and 104GB on PS4, so that's not going to fit on a cart, and it's going to also fill up most user's SD cards. Graphically it is no more demanding than Skyrim, so his meaning is clear, he just got mixed up and said "power" at the end when he meant something else.

@Daldra I love how you get downvoted for stating a fact.
Yes, a lot of developers are just too lazy to make a game work on Switch. But let's not kid ourselves either, people: More power tends to lead to more modern / intensive games (combined with console popularity, obviously). But of course fanboys choose to downvote instead.

@OorWullie You are completely right. But in the specific case of ESO, the problem is no power per se, is that the game is just too big to fit on any SD card and because the game's engine is a terrible mess that doesn't run well even on powerful hardware.
With that horrible engine Bethesda wouldn't be able to make it run on Switch even if they wanted.

I guess it's because of storage issues. Well, game looks like sh*t, so we're not losing anything special.

TES:O may be the best single player TES game to date in many ways. Runs smoother and less buggy than Bethesda developed games (it's Zenimax developed.) But this isn't surprising. It needs a huge amount of world data in memory, it's CPU-bound like all MMOs, tracking all those players and stats (Switch's weak spot) the full game is massive in terms of storage, and honestly ther's many that will argue it's terrible on all consoles and really shouldn't be on any of them, it's very very PC specific and can bog down elsewhere. It plays well (enough) on X1X, but I don't think I'd want to play it on a stock X1 or even PS4, let alone Switch.

If CDPR can get the Witcher 3 running good on the Switch, I'm sure Bethesda can remove their heads from their rear and get ESO running on Switch.

But this is Bethesda we're talking about, they don't like putting too much effort into games.

@RasandeRose Don't get me wrong, I get it. I understand it's a handheld. We're going to bring it on our next vacation trip, and it's going to be great for that purpose.

The thing is...I rarely game on the go anymore. It's not like I'm going to whip it out for restroom visits at the office. So it typically stays connected to my tv at home.

What I'm saying is I personally would prefer more power over portability. I recognize I'm probably in the minority here in saying that, but that's still what I think.

@Reignmaker

Yeah, I guess you would prefered Nintendo stayed on the main competition-line with consoles like the Gamecube? Economical it would probably not be a very good way for Nintendo, as Sony and Microsoft has so much bigger industry to rely on when developing consoles and compeeting in price and components.

Myself, I see no point in having a second home console besides Switch. It got more quality games than one have time for as an adult, its not like some Wii U years where it could be 6 month between decent releases. It doesn't get 100% third party releases, but it still holds the best 1st party line-up in my book, where Sony is the only real competition and it got decent third party support as well.

CD Projekt Red: hold my beer

This is a point where you need to make an even more powerful switch. Don't cut off from the original switch but, The original switch could stream the game but then the more powerful switch can actually have the game on the console. People with both consoles don't complain that the game is only on one of them when they can be on both. The Game Needs Internet anyways so you are both doing the same with both consoles.

@RasandeRose Not saying anything offensive. I agree I think Nintendo is more about the games they make more than having a really powerful console. Because alot of the games made by Nintendo are actually really good(Zelda,Mario,SSBU, + )So I think Nintendo still makes pretty good games for the SWITCH power they have.

This is one I actually agree with, though I don't think the Switch's power is the main factor here. Even if the game were optimized to perform on the Switch, which itself is possible, it's still a gargantuan game that takes up an absurd amount of space — its Steam installation installs at ~70gb, and apparently an additional ~20gb upon installing updates from what I've read. The size of the game prohibits it from being a decent Switch release, as most Switch players are either not going to have the storage space or do not want to eat up a huge chunk of their SD card with a single game. Not to mention it would not see a physical release, as fitting it onto a cartridge would be yet another challenge. Panic Button have the magic juju necessary to make colossal games like Witcher 3 and Warframe run (and run well) on the Switch, but they would need to make a deal with some kind of unholy entity if they were able to compress a game that large down to a manageable size that would make a Switch version feasible.

TES was a mess in beta, so I never played it after it launched. Definitely sounds like their file size means they have no clue how to optimize their files.

@SeantheDon29 not that youre wrong and that they couldn't get ESO to run with enough cash and time, the switch is still super underpowered compared to the PS4 and even the og One. Which considering those are 7 years old, isn't great. Like, I'm not going pretend that if someone announces a handheld with a more modern SOC solution that I'm not dropping the switch like a hot rock. It's just super limiting.

Here's my point, aside from the the Beth games which are all linear shooters and therefore you can do a lot of tricks to save what's being processed at a time, all those games you mentioned are on the 360/ps4, which is about where the switch is powerwise. In 2020, even for a mobile device, that's not great. Mobile hardware's come up at least a bump since 2015 when the tegra came out. It's time for a new one imo

It could also be that it would cost too much to port the game. As I understand, it’s not that popular and likely wouldn’t be a good investment to port.

the problems with MMO's and online games is, you can't revisit (replay) them once the service disappears, making them temporary/rented games. For this reason, I wouldn't buy it anyway.

@OorWullie The DOOM and Wolfenstein games are only published by Bethesda. Bethesda made Skyrim yes, but then they also made Fallout 76 and Skyrim Online has been panned by fans for being filled with lootboxes.

Power wise, ESO could run on the Switch with a bit of optimization.

Oh wait.... Bethesda is incompetent and can´t be bothered to optimize their games!

The filesize of ESO on the PC and even on console is over 150 GB !!!
It´s completely nuts and as such would require people to invest in a 256 GB SD-card, just to be able to install and run this game.

So yeah.... its a clear storage problem more than anything else.

Lol this is nothing new. Many games on PC that didnt came on console too because of power, that happens.

But to be honest not every game needs to come to Switch, and still things that help for the future when we have a Switch 2.

Point still stands that for the Switch brand it can only become better, while stationary consoles will be outdated knowing that Mobile chipsets are developing fast in terms of power.

It's not really a game for switch as it is. Although if they wanted it could run on it. They just don't want to spend the resources on it really.