Beta Tester Perspective: Worst State Aoe4 Has Ever Been

Age of Empires IV IV - Discussion
1

Good day, before i start my post, i would want to state that i do not seek to doom post, nor bring unnecessary negativity, i just want to state true facts that in my opinion have brought aoe4 to its worst state ever.

Im Marco, some of you who have been around for a long time may remember me, i’ve always defended this game because i always truly thought it was a great game with amazing potential, and i was right! From 2023 to 2024 this game in that window of time became the best Aoe game to play, there are not “buts”, there are no “aoe2 or aoe3 were better”, no, during that window of time, aoe4 was factualy the best aoe game, the game had the best balance, was going to recieve the largest expansion an aoe game had ever recieve and factually it was the best option when someone asked “what aoe should i buy”.

So, what happened? Why am i making this post? First off, ive been playing this game way before it actually launched, way before any “public open stress test” or open beta, i was a member of the closed beta, like some others here, not sure if they are still around. I believe that if someone can say that this game was better before, that is me, who has played all eras of aoe4. (Beta,stresstest,launch,s1 to s12), ive played in all these eras, and i can confidently say that right now, we are in the worst of them, at least in some key aspects, not all of them, let me expand on this point by point.

1-) Lack of clear vision.

Okay, can you please explain to me why are there mythological monsters and biomes into the core experience of Aoe4? What happened to the “oh we want to make aoe4 a game that prouds it self with history and groundness”, what happened there?

Yes, we had these as well in season 5 and 6, but it was different back then because these were seasonal events, people understood that there were not part of the aoe4 core experience because these were LIMITED TIME EVENTS. But now with each season you bring back these weird AoM type things and you make it permanent?? What do you mean that when i go to the multiplayer tab i can search a game for “Quick Match”, “Ranked” and “Map Monsters???”, what is this?? Age of Empires or Age of Uncanny 5 year old monsters? what happened with the historical groundness and seriousness aoe feels proud of?

Can you imagine Ensemble Studios adding map monsters to aoe3 or to aoe2 back in 2005 or 1999? No right? well then just dont do it for aoe4! Make these monster units be cheatcodes and you would resolve the issue altogether, and you can reuse the content, in a way that at least feels serious and grounded, cheats are meant to be fun and weird after all, but aoe4 is not meant to have map monsters and enchanted grove as part of the main experience.

2-) Stop creating content for 1% of the playerbase

What’s with releasing variant civ DLC’s for 15/20 dollars, when sultans ascend, a DLC that brings to you 2 civs, 4 variants and 1 campaigns costs 15 dollars?

There is something seriously wrong here, however lets get back to that later because i first want to make a point out of this, stop making content for 1% of the playerbase.

If i were to ask WHO WANTED 4 VARIANTS as a DLC this year, i believe with my whole heart that only 1% would reply “i did”, because there is no way as a normal player that you would preffer reused factions before new art, new voice lines and new cultures.

The playerbase WANTS new civilizations, not variants, and the thing that worries me is that this was made clear to you WE and Relic after the first variant civ DLC launched (Knights of Cross and Rose), and you still didnt listen, and went on with the publish of this Dynasties of the East DLC.

This is the result of not hearing the playerbase:

image
image677×219 65.3 KB

Sorry for the poor quality, as you can see the game DLC peaks are going down in numbers and players are loosing interest much quickly. Not to mention, that the aoe4 numbers we have today are thanks to sultans ascend which boosted the numbers from 7k to 17k avg, with 30k peak, so if anything, these DLC are not mantaining any of the numbers that Sultans Ascend granted aoe4.

This player count number will keep going down unless you hear the cries of the community and you actually get to work on new civilizations and campaigns, remember, the competitive playerbase is not even 25% of the full playerbase that makes up aoe4, even if they are the loudest. The casual playerbase should always be the target. What do you think, that aoe2 was made with the competitive side in mind in 1999? Of course not.

Bringing it up again, what is with this sudden price spike in recent DLC’s? and who thought 20 euros for a variant civs DLC was a good and respectful price? Aoe2 it self costed 20 euros back then, why should i buy a DLC that costs the same as a full game, this price is outrageous for how little content it brings.

3-) Communication is non-existant

This is relic fault now, what happened with the roadmaps relic? The roadmaps that we had in Season 1,2,3,4 and 5, what happened with them after? We dont know what will happen with the future of this game until it explodes us right in the face, feels like a gamble some times, maybe its good, maybe its not, like the season 11 changes that brought back permanently the map monsters for example.

Communication with the community was meh at best before but now it doesnt even exist, you guys did streams before talking about balance and all that with the developers, what happened with them?

4-) Final thoughts.

In my honest opinion, things have gone south for Age of Empires 4, the old historically grounded game is now a clown fiesta with Map Monsters, Enchanted Grove, a halloween map and a Winter map with plastic presents, being part of the core experience. Overpriced DLC’s that only satisfy less than 20% of the community and a Developer team that doesnt commit to any communication with the community whatsoever.

For me, we are in the darkest era of all, but let me know your thoughts.

Again, this post is meant to improve aoe4, not degrade it, have a good weekend.

9 Likes
2

a clear sign smt’s off with overall vision was lack of campaigns post sultan’s ascent, not saying crucible is bad or historical battles are bad, but both of those only included variant civs not actual new cultures, also WE can stop using we have stories to tell as an excuse if they offer only variants with no stories to tell

i sometimes wonder if the slogan “make history your story“ actually stands for: make your own campaigns, we can’t be bothered

the pricing spike we’re seeing here also isn’t exclusive to aoe4 for better or worse, all actively supported titles saw a 50% or higher price jump from 2022 when it comes to dlcs

3 Likes
3

I’m not a hard core historical purist. I enjoy the occasional Halloween biome or a monster once in a blue moon.

3 Likes
4

I do too, if it was once in a blue moon, however, they made it permanent :laughing:

5

Yeah very very weird…

The price spike honestly is the least of my worries, my worries are that there is no way a DLC with no real civilizations or campaigns should cost 20 euros.

3 Likes
6

gut feeling suggests to me we may not see another actual civilization being added, and i hate being right when it comes to predictions

1 Like
7

Hopefully not, lets pray for the best

8

plenty of interesting cultures to still add, assuming the team don’t waste all gameplay ideas on variants

thats how i see variants, a way to waste an idea that could’ve been its own full civ

4 Likes
9

You can definitely cross out a much-requested *proper Vikings/Norse civ.

3 Likes
10

Marco, saying that the game is in its worst state since we saw the beta and then launch and post-launch is a huge exaggeration on your part, and a big one at that. That’s without taking into account that the average number of players is the highest since January 2024. The game has a stable playerbase, below what I would like, but it’s not the disaster you want to make it out to be.

The monsters thing is nonsense that almost no one plays, and while the menu should be cleaned up to make it clearer, with fewer quick game modes and more immersion, the monster thing, I repeat, is a silly criticism compared to that.

The variants pose two problems. While they have different gameplay, they don’t carry weight in their name and can complicate the learning curve. I’m Spanish, so you can imagine how I felt when I didn’t see Spain as a civ, but I hope they do it in the next DLC. That would be the last chance I’d give them.

I think this narrative of confrontation between the most active playerbase (who play the most and give the game visibility, even if they are a minority) and casual players is getting tiresome. It’s 2025, and a Triple A game like AoE4 should be able to cater to various types of consumers. The Crucible isn’t a mode for 1% of players, is it?

There is a lack of historically significant civs, epic campaigns, co-op, QoL adjustments, and more immersion in the interface and details, etc… but saying that it is at its worst state makes no sense.

1 Like
11

Easy answer: they’re not. They’re optional game modes (historically time limited, now available to whomever wants them). You are not in any way forced to play them. They are not “core” to any part of the experience. The campaigns haven’t been altered to include them. You can exclude them from automatch.

Biomes are trickier, that’s fair. I know how much pushback Enchanted Forest got when it was released. But I’ll take options over timed exclusivity any day of the week, personally.

Personally? I believe Sultan’s was underpriced. But that’s a decision that if WE made (vs. my own speculation), then they get to live with the consequences of. Value for money is always going to be compared to it, for better or worse.

I agree on the game needing non-Variant civs. I enjoy Variants, but they shouldn’t be the only option. Unfortunately it seems like whoever is calling the shots on this hasn’t been changing their mind. It’s probably too cost-effective for the suits to pass up.

Communication should always be better, but WE manage this. Not any studio under them, or partnered with them.

Honest question: how is it meant to improve the game? I’ve been here since before launch. Adri too.

I appreciate we all have different opinions on things, we’re human. Venting can be a good thing. And I haven’t even moaned about the mod tools yet (4 years and still in beta, woohoo). Everyone needs to let loose with what’s on their mind from time to time.

But how does it improve the game?

And what happens if folks disagree? Does that mean we’re not improving the game? I’m concerned that pitting players against each other for enjoying different things (like Map Monsters, or the Variants, or whatever) causes people to be separated into “true fans” and “not true fans”.

1 Like
12

First of all, this is my opinion only, for me this IS THE worst state aoe4 has ever been, for me at least, you can disagree as much as you want :slight_smile: .

Ive never said this game didnt have a stable player base, i said it has a decreasing one, its stable yeah, but the numbers are going down, not going up, this is worrysome. Its not that i want to make it a scandal, i just want to point it up.

About the crucible, i never said anything about the crucible, did i? I like the crucible and i think its the best addition to aoe4 ever, however its just one thing, its not going to make the bad things seem less bad.

1 Like
13

That is the part where youre wrong, when i say core, i mean that its bundled with Aoe4, of course its not the core experience like its all you are going to play, no, i meant that its part of Aoe4 now and that it has lost that feeling of groundness, at least for me.

By the way, there is a funny paradox when you say “map monsters its optional”, i mean “multiplayer” is optional, “skirmish” is optional, “campaigns” are optional, every single mode in this game is technically optional, that doesnt mean its less part of the core experience right?

The point remains, why should there be monsters and mythological biomes in a medieval grounded game? It was fine before as seasonal limited time events.

Now that is a personal opinion, which is fine, but im totally oposed to it, at least if said content has nothing to do with the theme of the game, because it lacks groundness, its like call of duty weird non military skins.

No, roadmaps were handled by relic, at least before, i know this because i did ask in the Age of Empires discord back in 2023 and a relic developer said they were working on it.

How would you improve the game? I mean, dont take it wrong, but if you want to improve something you have to comment about that something, you have to make your voice heard, i dont want to hate on age of empires 4, why would i? If anything i just want it to be better hence why im complaining.

Not at all, if you dont agree you just dont, that is it, end of the story. From my point of view, my criticism is fair and will help to improve the game, maybe from you view it isnt, at the end of the day the developers will decide what best, not us.

14

Hi Marco, i’m glad to see you coming back.

Unfortunately i don’t play AOE4 anymore. I hoped until the end to see what i would loved to see (improved textures, new animations, Blood options, physics, new civilizations and Campaigns) to make this game great.

For me, AOE4 Is a decent game but not the best in Saga. Relic was probably not the best choice for this type of RTS. I’m playing COH3 again, After the latest DLCs and It’s great. Look at how effects and Fire have been showed and how good textures and models are. Animations are the best in RTS.

Essence Engine has been built for this kind of RTS, with a small scale where you can improve the graphic and details at the highest level.

For AOE4 they had to go with graphic compromise a It cutted off a lot of immersion.

Also, AOE4 has been developed with a focus on multiplayer and this Is the reason why there are not many features that we seen in other Titles.

Did you seen the latest leaks about AOE in Unreal 5?

After played Tempest Rising and Manor lords, i’m really curious to see what World’s Edge could do with a new Engine.

And yes, i played the closed alpha too.

2 Likes
15

I think a lot of confusion over questions like “why did they make something for 1% of the playerbase” are easily answered by identifying that more people than you believe exist actually do want these things.

We definitely hear the most from people who are not having their preferences met though!

16

Technically, it’s not the worst state of the game we’ve seen, and I’m surprised you feel that way. Another thing is the direction they’ve taken with the variants and some events.

Regarding something that is not debatable (the numbers), the average player base is the largest since January 2024. It is not correct to say that it is declining. We would have to wait a couple of months to see how it evolves. It is another thing to say that the DLC has not had the impact you would like or that the numbers will decline in the long term. That is another matter.

Regarding the cost of the DLC, the Sultans’ was very cheap (low cost for high volume). There has been inflation, and while I criticized the price of the previous DLC (because for me it really only sold Templars and extras), in this case I think the price is normal for a DLC, even if the civs are not what was expected.

17

Glad to see you back as well graphics lord :wink:

Good point.

Yes i did, which makes me wonder if they are going a different route this time, priorizing visuals and realism this time, which would be a huge win.

1 Like
18

This is not a quote that i made up, rather a quote by Killer Pigeon, a popular aoe4 caster.

image
image1209×926 106 KB

1 Like
19

Well i mean, we have a lack of vision, a lack of communication, and a lack of “hearing the playerbase”, maybe the game is not in its worst state, but the whole apple is rotten. That is what im trying to say, it really feels like they are trying to milk as much money as they can with these variant civ dlc’s.

If you use average player base as the metric, then sure, it has gone up, which is not surprising, because after two expansions, that is what should happen, however, a much more important metric is how the playerbase scales, how it grows, we’ve seen that the peak of players from expansion to expansion keeps declining and this is a good way of proving that the interest for the game is declining or at least it doesnt hype people up like Sultans Ascend did.

This is a fact, i submitted a picture above in the thread, you can check it up.

Sultans ascend was cheap yes, but that doesnt argument why Dynasties of the east should cost more than Sultans Ascend while having way less content. Inflation by the way is not an excuse because sultans ascend price has been fixed to 15 euros since launch and has not been adapted to inflation price so in theory, if anything its only cheaper than before and still brings waaay more content than recent dlc’s.

Lets admit it, why would i pay 20 dollars for dynasties of the east when i can buy a full game like Age of Empires 3 for that same value, the pricing is way too high for how little it offers, for 20 dollars i expect at least: 1 campaign, 2 civilizations, 4 variants and 2 biomes, which was what sultans ascend offers for 15.

2 Likes
20

So neither of us are wrong, then. We mean “core” differently. You use it to mean “in the game”. I use it to mean a part of the daily experience that all players are exposed to by default.

Good faith please, marco :slight_smile:

I mean you’re not forced to play them in any of the existing game modes. Like I said, they weren’t put into the existing campaigns, you don’t have to encounter them in automatch, and so on. No need for these kinds of gotchas, especially when we’re working from different definitions.

There are people who objected to it in any form. There are people who objected to it becoming permanent. There are people happy with it.

What lesson is the developer supposed to learn here?

Of course they’re involved with working on it. That doesn’t change what I said r.e. communication overall. I work on documentation and feature roadmaps at work. I am not responsible for rolling it out, or presenting it to customers. That’s Product’s job. I would expect a similar breakdown here, and that’s before we consider SEGA’s layoffs at Relic and Relic subsequently going independent.

I yell about modding support every chance I get (for all the good its done haha) :slight_smile:

I disagree that this is the worst the game has ever been, and it seems to be purely because of how differently you and I rate the fantasy elements in this game, as well as the concept of Variants. I’m used to that feedback. I would hope the developers are r.e. Variants too.

For the fantasy elements, there have been people complaining about the time-limited nature since they were first introduced. Others were happy it was time limited, and others hated it full stop.

Ultimately the developers will keep whatever is popular and helps keep player numbers up. Player numbers decreasing year on year is normal, and can’t be blamed on Variants or Map Monsters or whatever. It can be blamed on the lack of new content, but things like permanent Map Monsters have zero impact on the viability of that.

It feels like MS want the maximum value out of the minimum investment for this game, and that that greatly limits what the developers have the resource to do. How do you fix that? How can any of us?

The developers have always listened. We’re seeing that even to this day, with a new Japanese shield model, Floating Gate water effects, some enhancements to weapon rendering. I believe that they do what they can with the resources they have, and sadly I think anyone with the ability to increase that resource doesn’t look at these forums (or even player opinions in general).