EDIT: It’s so obvious that, if AoE4 fails to get younger players into the franchise, there will be no demographic in the future to market later installments like AoE5. Remember that there was only 6 year difference between AoE2 and AoE3. Between 3 and 4, 16 years. People just thought that there is no hope for sequels after the third installment failed to take the crown. It is only after Microsoft’s investment that AoE was revitalized. There is SERIOUS INCENTIVE to help this game take the crown as THE definitive AoE.
I have serious questions about how this game is being led. This game, from a technical and balance perspective, is MUCH better. The games are quicker, units are more responsive, and the learning curve for newer players is better. Let’s be honest: AOE2, though popular, is being kept alive on life-support through nostalgia; there’s not a lot of teenagers playing the game. AOE4 seems much more competitive in design and by the followers. The prize pools are much larger than AOE2. Analytics show that there are as many ranked matches played in AOE4 than in AOE2, despite Steamcharts showing half as many players on average.
Maybe this game had its chance back in the day. But people like Viper and Hera never stuck around due to abysmal state of the game’s launch and balance issues.
Now we have things like Ottoman + Malian update, two civs that barely did anything to player count when they were released back in October. It’s because, well, not many of us asked for them. Which begs the question: Do the devs even know what will draw the audience?
What can devs/marketing department do to get people over to this game?
EDIT: I want to say more on why this game is superior by design. People say things like “There’s much more variety in AoE2. More Civs makes things more fun.” But The design behind AoE2 makes it so that most civs get funneled into more or less same unit composition every single time. If you are Goths, you NEED to go meele units, not ranged composition. Each civ is not that hard to “get” and master. There is no complexity in learning a civ.
AoE4 is vastly different. Each civ has so much more complexities behind it. For instance, Teutons in AoE4 gets funneled into militia line play combined with siege support and cavs. HRE in this game makes it so that HRE can be a ranged civ as well through infantry movement speed upgrade, making archers and crossbows easier to kite. It can also be a cav civ with new upgrades. The way a civ can play is so varied to a point where many people “main” a civ. Where there is not as many civs to play, the variety of HOW a civ can play is so much better.
When I watch Viper and Hera, they complain about movement every other video. The pathing in AoE2 DE is still horrendous. When Star Craft came out around the same time, it wasn’t as bad. Even when the game came out, it was tec######## inferior. People just got used to it and settled.
Not only that, for a newer player, the starting game mechanic is also idiotic. You are allowed to kill boar with TC but, if you do, you can’t harvest. Just really think about that point. It’s a terrible design.
Also, all this argument about unit variety in AoE2 is, well, moot when it comes to actual gameplay. Because the designs around them are often idiotic due to the unintuitive nature of unique unit counters. Spear line does not actually counter Cataphracts. Archers do not counter Huskarls. Massed Longbows should still be countered by massed skirmishers and horses, right? Not really. Genoese Crossbows should be countered by horses, right? Nope. These absolutely unintuitive unique traits make it so that casual players will never be able to memorize them all. Combined with slower pace of the game, it is a very frustrating thing to go up against Huskarls and make archers, thinking that ranged units kiting them will counter it, spending 15 minutes of their lives making things that will not counter it, getting absolutely demolished. Not a fun experience for casuals.