the new graphic engine of aoe4 and its acceptable gameplay is enough to “replace” the previous versions, we just have to wait for those who cling to nostalgia to retire and that’s it
When this game truly “replaces” AOE2, if it ever happens, it will be at a state of being much more different than it is now, in its design, contents and even gameplay. Very likely it would have also incorporated a lot of the “bad” designs from previous games.
Then I would be curious if the aggressive boasters of its current state and design here would feel betrayed, or just go on celebrating another victory.
6 Likes
################## post:421, topic:228942"]
If AoE4 wasn’t intended to replace AoE2, then I really question the economic decisions when it comes to the longevity of the franchise and profit stream.
[/quote]
I agree, and I was surprised when they said it, but my recollection is that when AoE 4 launched it was explicitly stated by the devs that it was intended to co-exist with AoE 2 rather than replace it.
1 Like
the problem with your comparison.
FH5 never was an RTS.
again, what a measure for your definition success?
People love ####### questions.
PS for me 2 years ago Aoe4 was a replacement for sc2 & aoe2, it does not mean 100% would move to aoe2, but it means it bring more player than sc2 & aoe2.
never happens.
So, yes, in my opinion it’s 100% legit to compare aoe4 with sc2 and aoe2.
everything else == attempt to justify current position.
But again, to be objective you need to choose evaluation of “success” (before release). To do it, you need to start with simple answer: 2 years ago will it be a failure if number of players will be lower than aoe2.
no it was not.
Even aoe2 pros did not know the future of aoe2. MBL cried and claimed to quit aoe2. Nilli created N4C.
no one knew the future, except you.
understandable
just to remind you: aoe1 was promised to be improved in QoL + basic features. Never was. (except aoe2’s DLC RoR)
It’s a stone to yours “devs promised something”.
As someone who isn’t fan of aoe2 I am sure that nothing can replace aoe 2.
Especially now when they try to put some new mechanics in it.
Aoe 2 is classic and will remain classic even in 10-20 years.
Aoe 4 if wants to become something like that just have to be unique by its own.
Not aoe 2, not aoe 3 just aoe 4.
Devs should put their imagination making the games what they love not to be in this tiny box covering aoe 2,3 mechanics or etc.
I read someone said great quote and it was : “First purposse of the game is have to have fun, balance purpose is only to help you have fun”
Not sure if that was exact sentence but my point is let your imagination guide you, wish to create something fun, unique, amazing. Nothing expect to be balanced from the begining but if people atleast have fun learning it , learning each civ, balance will come out soon or later .
2 Likes
To drop in a funfact: According to Sandy Petersen (Doom, Quake, Lead on AoE 2 and 3) said by the time they released AoE 3 in 2005, they were still selling about 1000 copies of AoE 1 per month - so, the Age series definitely isn’t designed to replace the predecessor.
Nili planned N4C before AoE 4 was even released. As Nili is a content creator, much like Viper and the other players, they want to check the new game within the franchise they love out. It’ll also happen with AoM:Retold (yes yes, I know, that’s a remaster)
Well… the playerbase in AoE is about the same age for all titles and AoE 4 was marketed with nostalgia in mind.
1 Like
yes. before.
before release and a few months after release. Nobody new the future of aoe2.
sure, it wont go into oblivion…
But nobody expected future $$$ for tourney and other uncertainty.
Claiming “devs promised to support both games” - bullshit.
at some point - yes, but there was a gap with incomprehension for the future.
1,000 copies a month is a puny number, sorry to say. For a game that sold millions of licensed copies, it’s not a lot. If that was the case, the franchise was in severe decline back in 2005 (and it was). And we know that the purchases were being made primarily by Vietnamese customers, purchasing the game in Vietnamese Dong, not dollar. So, not a lot of money. They might make it sound grand, but it’s not a happy number for a AAA game. But let’s use that metric to the circumstance. 1,000 digital copies of AoE2 DE sold, at $19.99. That’s $20,000 per month. $240,000 per year. Considering how a 30% of the sales goes to Steam, we gotta cut some out. Let’s just round it to $200,000 (it would be $168,000 if all the sales were made through Steam). When talking a business at scale, that’s not a lot of money. That MAYBE gets you a single executive’s salary+bonus+benefits. It’s not sustainable.
There’s a reason why game studios make sequels. It’s to replace previous titles. That’s how you make more money. You can’t charge $60 out of the gate for a 20 year-old game.
But not for a game that was 8 years old by that time.
The Age series was put on hold because Ensemble was tasked to make Halo Wars for the Xbox 360 and was disbanded by Microsoft in 2009.
Actually, you still can make money with AoE 2 - it’s currently the 58th most sold game on Steam - that’s of course inflated by the ongoing sale:
https://steamdb.info/app/813780/charts/
And I guess with Gamepass, sales figures became less important for MS.
But that’s not how the Age series works, apparently.
2 Likes
If that’s the narrative at the studio and amongst the team, sure. Why not. Even when AoE2 effectively replaced AoE1 and was developed intending to replace AoE1. But I have a hard time believing that the top brass with the purse thinks that, because that goes against common sense franchise growth and customer retention strategies, not to mention how it goes against every other videogame franchise I am aware of. Every franchise needs the flagship item. One will eventually replace the other as the definitive item of the franchise. If it’s not too clear now, then things will make sense in a couple years, just as AoE2 took a few to overtake AoE1 and kill it.
2 Likes
I’m going to give my opinion on whether or not AoE4 was really meant to replace AoE2.
It is true that the devs stated that both games could coexist and that replacement was not their intention, but those statements had a reason: The game was released quite incomplete, since there was some problem in the middle of development (according to what they say for there users who were aware of the development) and there was a development restart (please confirm if so).
Of course, in 2016-2017-2018, the intention was to replace AoE2, since it was a game made in the same historical era and it was more similar to 2 than 3, but those objectives were cut short with the aforementioned.
I’ll open the final feedback thread shortly. I think that with the addition of quality of life and missing content in the game, AoE4 will be in a position where any (slightly open-minded) player of another AoE game could enjoy it.
Well I usually know that from games that have a release cycle of 1-2 years. The Age series doesn’t fall into that category - the DEs in that regard don’t count as their intention was mainly to migrate the players from the old to the new versions.
Well, AoE 4 is the flagship - out of all Age games, it gets the most attention marketing- and communication-wise since its release, whether its having the AoE 4 theme in this very forum since the game’s release or the official age website being in the same blue-ish colour tone the game is in, having season 1 and 2 as the server banner for Discord, announcing patch notes before they roll out, having many videos and VODs on the official Age channel with the occasional AoE 2 and 3 video dropped in: https://www.youtube.com/@ageofempires/videos
There’s no doubt MS doesn’t take AoE 4 seriously. However, AoE 2 managed to be the timeless game we know today and paid content for it apparently also sells well that we now have 4 DLCs for Definitive Edition and 9 expansions for AoE 2 in total. Literally no one ever thought that we’ll be here and personally, I’m glad we’re seeing AoE going strong as a whole.
There’s also another reason why AoE 4 isn’t a replacement but rather an addition: each Age game features a different time period. I know, AoE 4 returns to the middle ages, but is mechanically different enough to be enjoyed on its own.
2 Likes
As a Vietnamese, may i ask where is the your source? I find it very weird that we bought AoE back in 2005. AoE and Half life 1.6 is default game that pre installed and crack on all pc that i bought back in the day.
1 Like
Not all computers were cracked with illegal copies. The game was popular enough for people to buy them if their pc did not come with it.
################## post:433, topic:228942"]
And we know that the purchases were being made primarily by Vietnamese customers, purchasing the game in Vietnamese Dong, not dollar.
[/quote]
source? afaik Aoe1 is popular in Vietnam because it came preinstalled
################## post:435, topic:228942"]
If that’s the narrative at the studio and amongst the team, sure. Why not. Even when AoE2 effectively replaced AoE1 and was developed intending to replace AoE1. But I have a hard time believing that the top brass with the purse thinks that, because that goes against common sense franchise growth and customer retention strategies, not to mention how it goes against every other videogame franchise I am aware of. Every franchise needs the flagship item. One will eventually replace the other as the definitive item of the franchise. If it’s not too clear now, then things will make sense in a couple years, just as AoE2 took a few to overtake AoE1 and kill it.
[/quote]
that is such a narrow view. Here is how I think it goes:
they try to make interesting games because they know that if players like one of the games they will probably try out the others. I have several friends who bought aoe4, played it a bit, then got aoe2. similar for Civ VI and Civ V, IV, III.
The replacement strategy works for annual games like Fifa etc, but with games this different people won’t just switch the next new thing
3 Likes
I mean I think AOE4 has a negative stigma around it but…it really isnt that bad
You really think nostalgia is why they are around? The other games still exist because people enjoy playing them. I don’t play because of my childhood I play because I enjoy it.
10 Likes
Indeed. That’s the type of comment I’d expect from someone that has had no connection with any AoE game outside of AoEIV. Really a piss poor attitude only a zealot would say.
This entire worldview of “old=bad, new=good” is really offputting and I’m seeing it more and more. New blood is great but when that new blood belittles the older games without playing them and then tries to dictate what makes an aoe game an aoe game while telling lifers they need to “retire” I have a big problem with that.
8 Likes
I don’t doubt it, that’s why in the red bull wololo tournament, they started with 29 villagers, that sounds like: “Empire Wars” 
27 villagers actually - the screenshot you posted is from 0:53 ingame, by that time they already made two villagers as a vill takes 25 seconds to train.
And you’re actually prooving Age’s point here. People are playing the game because they enjoy it, even if it’s Empire Wars.
This so much. You should’ve at least played the game to have an opinion on it and not just rely on what you see in videos. That’s what I’m also saying to AoE 2 players that critizice AoE 4 btw.
3 Likes