I can see now that you are biased for SC since you keep ignoring what games were designed for esports and which ones weren’t, yet keep saying “Oh yeah, SC has better esport than AoE”
I not going to respond to you anymore, you are clearly a biased SC fanboy. You keep ignoring what I say in my posts and use strawman arguments.
The data of the total population is right there. You just can’t handle the truth. Stop projecting your bias on me.
Secondly, a game doesn’t have to be designed to be an esport to be popular. We’re talking about player population, and it’s clear to see that SC2 has a huge advantage over AoE2.
This includes SC2 singleplayer population? If so then they are a lot more behind AoE2 than I thought.
Lol
You are the biased one here, you yet again ignored every. single. one. of. my. posts.
I am talking about total player population, you are talking about ranked population. 2 VERY different things.
A game has to have a very unique gameplay to be an esport, AoE2 gameplay isn’t the formula for a successful esport, which doesn’t matter because it was never meant to be one. SC2 was riding on the hope that it would be an esport
Now that I think about it, you are probably trolling, any reasonable person can see what I am CLEARLY saying…
You don’t have any data to back up your claims (you just pulled 30k out of your ***) and keep ignoring what’s presented to you. I think there’s no more constructive discussion that can be found here.
Btw, from the links I’ve provided, player populations for team games are also included so the huge gap between SC2 and AoEIIDE is very clear to me.
If relying on an imaginary number to tell yourself that AoEIIDE has slight edge over SC2 makes you sleep at night, then so be it, but you can’t convince others.
Now I know you are trolling.
@SugaryGraph1416 explained to you how to check AoE2s MP playercount, which isn’t counting SP which is much much bigger than the MP crowd, proven by SotL
You should be one to talk seeing as you have ignored every single one of my posts.
Finally, something we agree on.
It is not imaginary, it has been proven by simple math
I just want to cut to the chase because you tend to derail the discussion.
If you just check the links you’ll see that even in 1v1 and team games, SC2 has the bigger playerbase. So… do I have spell it out for you?
SC2 has bigger 1v1 and team game player population vs AoE2 → MP population is smaller → hidden number of SP players must be larger. Ok? Clear now?
You just love to label anyone you’re arguing with by calling them a troll even though you haven’t provided any concrete evidence that support your argument. What is SotL? Something you pulled up again?
You seem to be a very petty person so I have to back out now. Please take your meds, check the data, and finally ignore them so that you can sleep, ok? Bye.
You must not have read much of the threads since your entry into them (only a few months ago) if you truly believe that.
Spirit of the Law, he is a very famous AoE2 youtuber
I have already said that
It is larger, after you have played AoE2 for awhile you will understand why.
I’ve checked them multiple times and keep gaining the same conclusion. Apparently your bias for SC blinds you from the facts
I mentioned numbers cause they were incorrect a little, but it does not change the fact that SC2 has more players.
The max and best estimation for MP and SP can be 200k as unranked. (dont believe that there are people who play campaigns or only AI without friends…i dont know any…they at least play coop or vs AI in unranked) Even if u give it another 50k. → still not enough.
We know 100% that sc2 have bigger playerbase in MP.
Any speculations for SP - useless, cause there are no data. Also speculation that distribution between SP and MP for SC2/aoe2 should be different - has no confirmation.
Sc2 has great custom games(not included in stat), campaign, and ppl who play vs AI should not be different in the RTS game.
aoe2 cannot have more players than sc2.
Also i would rather worried that number of aoe2 players is lowering (based on steam) than fighting against sc2 → who loosing players faster.
This is true, there isn’t much need to debate it honestly. Its not like either game loses legitimacy.
One major reason Starcraft is massive as well is that its literally free to play: Blizzard Support - StarCraft II Free to Play.
So long as Aoe 2 has a paywall it won’t beat a literally free game.
False, only a mediocre RTS fail…
Can only hope AoE4 is a success and from my view of play beta. Looks quite reasonably on track to be.
Isn’t Agey2 played enough … Zzzz…
Circlejerking over pointless speculations of meaningless value.
ultrafanatics of AoE2 who believe that the correct thing is their purism and that is the worst for the community, because they are totally subjective and they think they have the possession of the absolute truth because they do not want to leave their comfort zone , from their little world of aoe2 that they have been locked in for so long.
I don’t necessarily agree with anything else you say, but as someone who has played AoE2 since launch and is probably going to keep playing it for the rest of his life: this is unfortunately too true.
I’m always quite excited whenever something new and different comes out in the series because I love AoE2, so it always baffles me when other players are so negative about anything that doesn’t turn out to be a perfect copy of it. I mean, there are very valid criticisms of the other games, of course, and AoE2 will likely always be my favorite AoE game, but still…
I don’t know what that word is.
Yes, the RTS genre is dead now, we have not had a single new game in the classic RTS genre for many many years.
You see, the whole point is that the gaming market revolves around consoles, and the main competition is in the console market. Unfortunately, RTS are games that are not suitable for consoles, too much manipulation and micro control.
He invests a lot of money in a game that can only give birth to only one platform, this is a very dubious business, RTS began to die precisely with the rise in the interest of large studios to conquer the console market (and now also mobile and portable), and the golden age of RTS fell on the era of PC market domination.
Now we have the first really interesting attempt by a large AAA company to invest in a genre that has been considered the most unprofitable until now, the failure of this monetary investment means that the genre is still unprofitable and you can forget about it.
Let me remind you that it was after the success with the purchase of AoE remasters that EA announced a possible re-release of Red Alert 2 and the release of new parts of C&C, in their interviews they said that “We will look at the successes of Microsoft”, it seems to me that this literally means that interest in the RTS genre is now completely depends on the success of the AoE 4.
No the branding would be Age Of [fill in time period] for example
Age of Colonialism
Age of Nuclear
Age of Future
Age of Space etc.
Age of Empires would be reserved for more conservative improvements and strict successors.
AOE 4 is a strict successor to the AOE franchise.
Wow! Who would’ve known 
Dead? No, on a death bed? Yes
…Iron Harvest?
Yes, I really would like to forget about its existence)
This game, unfortunately, turned out to be the most disastrous, both in terms of gameplay (too few original ideas), and in terms of visuals and plot.
The campaign disappointed most of all, horrible stealth missions and a mission with a huge German walking machine (I forgot the name) spoiled the whole impression of the campaign.
The game has very little content, well, in fact, the game died instantly, now almost no one plays it.
You’re joking right?
First you complain we haven’t gotten any classic RTS in years than you complain about a classic RTS (that literally just came out not too long ago) and how it isn’t original
Graphics were quite good and so was the campaign plot
This was the best part of the game
For an indie project, this game is good, but we still talked about the passion for the RTS genre of large studios.
I would not say that this game is quite original and memorable to be remembered in 3-4 years.
I complain that the RTS genre is completely ignored by big studios, and we have not had expensive projects in this direction for a very long time. Iron Harvest is an indie project, as we can see, the game has not gained much success.
Again, this is a great job for an indie game, but the big robots look great, but the smaller objects don’t look detailed enough for a tactical strategy game.
Basically, the company is dynamic and interesting, but it is spoiled by some game design solutions, for example, stealth missions that literally break the vigorous and energetic pace of the game, moreover, they are very single-celled. And then the mission with a walking car is simply terrible, the car is slow, but even if it needs to be passed very large, the car itself takes a lot of damage and must stand still for a long time to restore health, in short, a terrible boredom.