The problem is once you start useing engines for things they arnt well designed for, its more prone to breaking down/errors/bugs ect.

Bethesda could probably benefit alot, from just moveing to a newer engine.
Eg. better running / lookin game, with less bugs (due to old engine issues).

Its probably wishfull thinking, that they ll just "elbow grease" their way outta troubles caused by engine pick.
Do you see bethesda just working harder & putting in more work, to polish things? if they cared enough, they wouldnt have released Fallout 76 as is.
They simply dont care enough about their quality of work.

As the saying goes "you can work smart, or you can work hard"

Bethesda isnt going to work harder, maybe they should work smarter?
Right tools + engine = less work/bugs to fix ect.

They should use Unreal and save mad bucks on the EGS!

Why? It's theirs, it's cheap, they're greedy and don't want to spend a buck.

Can't wait to see how that will play out with their next releases. But the way they are handling things doesn't bode well for Bethesda.

There are, at least what the base of these engines are. Unity would be an example.

However, they are getting constantly upgraded and expanded to keep up with the times. The Creation Engine on the other hand is already an outdated mess that can't really cope with modern hardware due to some of the groundwork being pretty much incompatible with modern ways of computing. Spit, polish and Elbow grease won't do much if the groundwork is rubbish

I think Bethesda is in a situation where they feel as though they don't have the competency to create a new, better, engine. Thus, knowing that TESVI will need to rely on their old engine, they are going to do it anyways, in the hopes of getting whatever money they can out of the franchise before it's considered dead.

Game engines can be updated and fixed, depending on the circumstances, but they have shown us over time that the best they can do is simply not good enough, and TESVI will suffer as a result.

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but Bethesda would have to be pretty stupid to make the Fallout 76 mistake twice. Even so, I think Fallout 4 showed there is some life in the Creation Engine, and it's ability to be modded is simply unrivaled in the industry.

But they will probably need to break compatibility with old G.E.C.K.'s to update the engine to a point where it can compete again with other major engines and make a completely new modding toolkit.

But I believe, with all the work put in to make the engine multiplayer capable, Bethesda has already sunk in way too much money trying to update it. I can only see them trying to massage it into a better engine then giving up on it alltogether.

I don't really have a vested interest in this argument, but I have to ask you something. Is it ok for a gaming studio to keep using the same engine over and over again with crazy amounts of bugs when other companies are moving on with far better engines? Just curious what your thoughts are here.

My Prediction: Bethesda is going to try and re-brand the Creation Engine under a new name, but deep down it's still going to be the Creation Engine. It makes me upset just thinking about it. Peh!

Yep. Creation engine is a coding offshoot of Fallout 3's Gamebryo code. But it gets potentially worse. Some of the code from Fallout 3 may date all the way back to Morrowwind. A common practice in coding is to save working code, and then copy/paste it into a new project to save time. I'm willing to bet that Creation Engine is a frankenstein monster of old code duct taped onto new code, that multiple people working years apart threw together over the course of decades. 

And here I though the tech to make TES6 and Starfield was not ready yet

I half agree with him, and half don't.

I agree with him on bethesda's incompetence when using the engine itself, but at the same time I disagree strongly with him thinking that the engine can just go on for decades and still be considered "perfect" or "fine", for an engine like that, especially in the face of engines like Fox or Unreal, hell even Source engine modifications that allowed for Titanfall, and then there's also Frostbite. #

I do like the modding capabilities it brings, but at the same time, we need script extenders for the more beefier mods, but how much better would it be, if we had an engine that didn't always need routine script extender installations, and having to faff around big time, before the real modding gets underway?. 

I was recently playing BL TP and BL2 last and this week. I thought to myself "wow, imagine if Fallout 3-4 looked and played like this?, it'd be amazing". I look back at F3-4 and all I remember is jank and now dated visuals, which desperately need mods, to keep them from aging any further. All the BL series needed was a texture upres and everything ended up looking that bit more cleaner. Meanwhile for any of Beth's 3D RPG titles, I'll need to spend a full on week gathering mods, getting them to play nice, as well as keeping them up to date, even with Nexus MM, that becomes a hassle over time, and hell, with how Beth tries to tamper with the modding scene, by updating old games like Skyrim, for no apparent reason, half the community gets pissed and half don't bother to update their mods due to that happening. 

When you look at the big picture, it all starts to add up. yes, an amazing old engine that allows for modding capabilities, but I strongly think like others do here, and elsewhere on the net, that a new engine is due. Seriously, I like Zaric's content, but the guy isn't a know it all when it comes to engines, and just how long they could go on for. Going by his logic, the creation kit could go on for 50 years and be excused for it's cracks and glaring flaws. I'm not going to pay heed to his talks of it not being all beth's fault though, no engine is perfect either. 

I do think that it is time beth went with a brand new engine, or adopted someone's engine instead.

I'd even suggest Beth use Fox engine, or the modified Source engine that Respawn was using (to save mega bucks on Steam store ofc)