Gorb has a point tho, especially this one:
3 Likes
Just cause AoE 4 lost players doesn’t make it a failure that is expected. But it is rather silly for someone to point at AoE 3 de and say see it trending down some after the peak we had when it went semi free to play. True it did drop players but we all knew it would as long as it retains some and the average player numbers go up I’m happy. AoE 4 lost a way higher percentage of its players after release then AoE 3 de did, but these same people will just say that’s fine.
3 Likes
One fact is that an existing game, which comes new to Steam or a remaster, usually loses much fewer players than a new game that reaches more people. You have many examples on Steam.
It is also a fact that statistics must be interpreted correctly.
This is nonsense.
They bought DE because it is a better version with the latest updates and they love the original one.
but it does not make any sense when it comes to flawed comparison…
Your point is pointless and dull.
There are both new and old players coming in to AOEIIDE and AOEIIIDE
AOEIV is getting more new players.
So you exclude old players from that number? because it is unfair? Do you even know how to look at graphs and stats???
LoL
2 Likes
That one might be anecdotal but AoE 4 also gets a lot of “old” players who used to play AoE 1 and/or 2 in their childhool and rediscover the franchise. These players also seem to act according to the principle “new = better”, but that is not the topic now. The topic is - comparing the player numbers of a completely new game with the ones from remasters makes little sense especially since the originals came out in the time before tracking player numbers was a thing. We only know that OG AoE 2 sold 1 million copies in 3 months and OG AoE 3 did so in 3 years.
4 Likes
The only thing I know is that it is not accurate at all and makes everything look wrong.
During that time, gaming was not as popular as it is now (mainly due to accessibility)
This is why just looking at AOE2DE and AOE3DE you get a simple answer.
All of them were released in the last 5 years.
AOEIV did sell well but did not maintain its player numbers, but AOE2DE did it much better.
What is the main problem?
And so you get your answer.
You guys are just trying to avoid a crucial question and are not willing to get the answer.
1 Like
Age of empires 3 will most likely always be a niche within a niche. That doesn’t bother me, what bothers me is that it is said or implied that it is a bad game just because it is played or sold less. There are much less sold or popular games that are considered successful.
I understand why AOE-2’s gameplay is more popular than AOE-3’s. People feel the game is fairer without the use of cards and “free units”, but people who play AOE-3 like it because they feel like a city supports them in new territory. The period in which it is set is also much more attractive, since most prefer an arrow over a bullet, and a catapult over a falconete. It is also a game from the 90s and it came out at a time when it managed to establish itself as one of the best games in history. Many video games that came out at that time today have received remasters and reboots. The 90s were revolutionary.
5 Likes
The statistics clearly shows that aoe2 have more players retention than AOE IIV. That’s the point.
3 Likes
and retain players better. aoe 4 is a disaster in every way.
4 Likes
But the retention of a remaster like AoE2 at launch (with more than 50 hours of campaigns and more polished content) is not the same as a new game, since many more players outside the genre tested it in the new game. AoE2 had a big playerbase behind.
Whether AoE4 was able to retain more players months later is another matter if it had done things right at the beginning. Yes, of course he could do it, but the past is past and we will have to look forward.
1 Like
A new game is actually more interesting and viral that can hook players easily.
For example, CODMW2Remasted was released, but CODMW did better because it was a new game.
CODMW did retain its players.
CODMW2 Remastered did not, because only SP and CO-OP contents were playable. Therefore, people would play campaign and leave. Or some didn’t even bother playing it.
When a new game is well done, it is 100% better than the remaster or DE.
1 Like
First of all - whatever “you guys” is - I’m not part of it. It seems like nowadays you can only like product A so you have to dislike product B. I’m not like that at all.
To come to your point…
AoE 2 DE succeeded AoE 2 HD, which itself already had three DLC at the time of DE’s release + DE came with Last Khans as a bonus which itself was once planned for HD Edition.
DE also more or less united the various AoE 2 communities (mostly Voobly and HD) and came out at at the right time, just before the start of the pandemic. Also, according to dev interviews from 2019, DE’s base game has 200 hrs of campaign content which will keep you busy.
There you have it why AoE 2 ends up having the higher player number.
This doesn’t mean that I consider AoE 4 to be better or whatnot, I think it still has obvious design flaws.
2 Likes
Yes, that’s pretty much what I said.
I don’t get why you have to argue just because it’s me saying it.
What you are saying is exactly why the DE versions have better retention than a brand-new title.
That’s all there is to it.
1 Like
It has quite a few unique units, except for the HRE who is way behind in that… the devs urgently need to focus on them… and good to give 2 or 3 more UU to the Abbasids, English and French each new season…
1 Like
Unique unit doesn’t mean that the “unit” itself have uniqueness.
4 Likes
“unique units are arguably not unique enough” is not the same as “there aren’t enough unique units”.
They’re different arguments, with different solutions.
2 Likes
nah, you are kinda don’t understand an improved game and a new game.
An improved game is simple, better things, some new things, etc.
But a new game is a completely new experience and an Improved version of AOE in the Medieval era for AOEIV.
When I bought AOE2DE I pretty much knew most campaigns, so I just went for the new ones by skipping the most. And mostly MP and SP modes and was not a lot excited, but satisfied by a lot!
But when I bought AOEIV, I was excited and when I tried it, it was new, and played it a lot, and saw lots of flaws in the game that did not contain known and my favourite features of AOE1 and 2.
A complete dissatisfaction after 200-300 hours of the game.
I had 22 friends in the game and most are my mates.
They all complained about a lot of missing features and got angry, and dumped the game. They don’t know the AOEIV forum and I think most players don’t know it. A reason why there ain’t so many people complaining.
Just like that, other players left the game.
And my point is that it is not normal or okay at all.
AOEIV got the worst player retention.
And World’s Edge and Relic etc need to focus on what they are wrong.
And must not repeat the rookie mistakes.
But here you are saying, it is a normal sight for a new game…
Most AOE2 players were excited about AOEIV as it was the same era…
I swear, they were ready to switch to AOEIV if it was real good.
They all saw T90 and TheViper’s stream and these two already complaining that we cannot choose colour, change hotkeys etc…
Most players were disappointed…
And is stuck in AOE2DE.
They are just waiting for a better AOE game in the medieval era.
It is not like AOEIV is starcraft game, so AOE2’s player base wont come to play it…
2 Likes
I would say, most AOE2 players are just waiting for a better AOE in the medieval era where arrows miss, more micro etc.
AOEIV could not deliver it and the release, communication, and update pace was and still is horrible are the main reason why people are leaving it.
In any franchise, a new game performs better if it is done well.
The Witcher, COD, Baldur’s Gate, etc are good examples
Battlefield2042, and Just Cause4 are the bad examples here.
AOE2 players are just stuck in AOE2 because nothing better is released until now.
AOEIV didn’t do well and is not attracting them. So clearly, it is not made for AOE players.
But someone else.
COD makes games for COD players, for the people who love to play the COD.
But AOEIV is made for non-AOE players and that is where the players need to question it.
Is it really an AOE game?
Then why other AOE players are not coming to play AOEIV???
And when AOE players try AOEIV. Why they are not satisfied, complaining, and not happy about it???
1 Like
How do you prove this? The DE editions aren’t proof. You’d need to be able to provide launch day numbers for classic II and III, and how they waned in the weeks, months and years that followed.
I am. Every game suffers a significant drop from launch numbers. What you’re doing is going “look at this game that didn’t launch on Steam”. I can do the same. Dawn of War: Soulstorm. The last expansion for vDoW, outsourced to an external developer because Relic was busy with other projects.
~3k peak, and just less than 1k still playing right now?
That’s not right. The peak was much higher than 3k, but the game was released in 2008. Steam chart stats started in 2012. The game was released on physical media; not Steam. You needed to download patches off of FileFront 
This is what I’m trying to tell you.
The problem we have, is it’s hard to find a game similar to AoE IV. I could pick a live service game like Warframe or Destiny 2, but they’re (actual) live service games. They’re F2P with freemium mechanics and ingame currencies. I could pick Guardians of the Galaxy, or Borderlands 2, but they’re either single-player or co-op games with no real multiplayer presence at all (Guardians is 100% single-player, I think).
You seem to believe that IV has some magical, horrendous drop-off in retention that no game comes close to, and that’s just odd. Because there are games that come close to that, some do better, some do worse.
The fact is AoE III: DE prior to going semi-F2P was pulling in significantly less-than-half of IV’s numbers. Nobody said “therefore AoE III is bad”. Nobody said “the devs need to change things”. People who like III: DE, continued to like it.
And if you want more things to come to IV, and you don’t believe they’re going to, that’s fair enough. That’s reasonable. I understand the frustration.
I just draw the line at poor logic, and using that frustration to hurl insults around, is all.
This is incorrect. Game success is based on a large number of factors, and sometimes good games don’t succeed. Sometimes “bad” games succeed. It’s entertainment, there are a lot of subjective factors. Just like movies. How many cult classics exist nowadays, that bombed on release?
I’m not saying IV is a “cult classic”, I’m just arguing against “good games do well”. That’s not a rule you can rely on.
(also, it did better than III: DE which was released less than two years beforehand, so, again, financial success != bad / good game)
1 Like
I don’t think they’re waiting. AoE 2 just offers them exactly what they want. And that’s the thing about the Age franchise. You have four different games plus one spinoff plus a free to play game that’s now maintained by fans that all don’t really compete with each other as depending on personal preference and taste, each game offers something for you.
It’s not like in any EA published sports title such as FIFA or Madden where the old game eventually goes offline because the new one replaces it.
What’s funny about mentioning COD is the fact that after multiplayer for the older Xbox 360 titles (Black Ops 1+3, MW2) went online again, lots of people went back to them which kind of defeats your point.
2 Likes