On game release people already datamined Japanese assets in the game starting the first rumours that Japanese will be the 2nd DLC but just a few months ago they made a survey asking us what Pantheons we want to have in the game.
They clearly already were far into the development of the Japanese DLC at that point so the only reason why they would want to ask us is because they want to make additional DLC.
But what about the cancelled AoE3DE DLC? I think it was cancelled in favour of AoMR. They moved the entire AoE3DE team to AoMR. That means the cancellation of the AoE3DE DLC makes additional AoMR DLC more likely and not less likely.
Maybe their original plan was to only make 2 AoMR DLC and then go back to supporting AoE3DE but they now decided to focus on AoMR instead.
But at the end of the day we will only know what they are working on when we see it. They could announce AoE5 tomorrow and move all developers over to that project, who know.
Iām an Age of Empires 3 and Age of Mythology player.
I love both games and was very disappointed when the AoE3 DLC was cancelled.
I donāt want to see the same curse repeated on AoM!
Ideally, if the team can alternate between AoM and AoE3 DLC, that would be great. Although Iām looking forward to a new AoM DLC (Mesoamerican civ please) as the game still lacks content compared to the others.
I know that the two games I like do less business than the two medieval games. But Iām sure theyāre still profitable, itās still a well-known license with a loyal player base, and a team of developers well trained to add content.
But shareholders always want more, such is the curse of todayās video game industryā¦
Maybe alternating was their plan originally but I can see why that might be a bad decision.
When frequently making DLC for a game you can have a pipeline where you already move over some people to the next DLC while other finish up the previous one. That pipeline is the most efficient if there is a little friction as possible.
Having to go back to AoE3DE and either switch back to the tools for the older engine or putting in the effort to port the engine to the same version as AoMR might have been seen as too time consuming.
Their original schedule was clearly too ambitious with both an AoE3DE and AoMR DLC coming out last year already.
Of course I wish they would make both AoE3DE and AoMR DLC because I love both games.
I went on a whole write up in another thread so I wonāt rehash too much, but to keep it brief I completely agree. If the third total DLC (the first one not sold in bundle with the base game) flops then iāll have alarm bells going off in my mind, but iām 99.9% sure at least that third will come, and as long as it does fairly well iām decently confident weāll see more. Weāll never see anything like 45 pantheons like we have 45 civs in AOE2 (ā¦wait, thatās actually 50 now, donāt get me started on the 3K DLC) especially since each pantheon is really 3 civs, but if sales go well enough then I think at least 5 more after Japan is a reasonable thing to hope for (hoping for something Mesoamerican, something Mesopotamian, Celtic, Slavic, and perhaps Persian or Inca at least, something sub-saharan African could be cool as well. Iām sure there are more options on top of those (and Roman too I suppose) but I think the ones that I listed are probably some of the easiest to get an ample amount of god powers and myth units out ofā¦maybe they could scrounge enough for some sort of Algonquin/Iroqois civ or a Puebloan civ, those could be really cool but would likely be harder, but not impossible I donāt think.
Anyway, iām as certain as I can be without having insider info that there will be at least 1 more DLC, with plenty of chance for more as long as the next DLC after Japan doesnāt flop horrifically.
Honestly part of the thing with AOE3, and probably the reason it was the first on the chopping block, is that Microsoft doesnāt like the setting. Colonialism and all this other stuff that kinda defines AOE3ās setting is stuff I think Microsoft doesnāt want to be touching with a 10 foot pole because of political correctness concerns that the other games donāt have because even though plenty of bad stuff happened in, say, the medieval period (looking at you crusades, for just one of many examples) its further away from us chronologically so people arenāt as fussy about it.
Suffice to say, AOM is the least problematic in that regard because its a fantasy setting heavily inspired by real mythology. Not real, inspired by real-not real stuff is the least likely to have people having problems with it, which gives AOM a huge leg up over AOE3, and so I donāt think the situations are that comparable as far as sunsetting a game is concerned.
Yep, i agree that we shouldnāt forget the survey where they ask about our opinions and suggestions. (i focused on this survey about an hour or more so i hope this wonāt be in vain xD)
But i am also quite certain that we will get at least:
2 more civs next year (one quite certainly mesoamerican)
at least 1 major god with three new minor gods for each civ to even the roster compared to the norse
I am personally relatively certain AoMR will be supported similar to Total War: Warhammer with patches and new content. At least till next year if not till 2027 (maybe even 2028 if we are lucky). But maybe sometime around 2027 they will announce something (?) but 2026 i am VERY certain we will see more content for AoMR.
I think the future of AoMR depends more on other games then AoMR itself.
AoE3DE didnāt die because of low sales but because they canāt support too many games at the same time.
The biggest competition for AoMR and AoE4 will probably be AoE5 if that happens.
Yes if they launch mesoamericans I am pretty sure they will add one more or even two in a row, at least aztec maya probably. It will save a lot of time and money if they can copy pasta the design of architecture with some minors changes
They have never done that though.
Chinese and Japanese look like entirely unique building and unit rosters and so are Greeks and Atlanteans despite being based on the same mythology.
Why would the Aztecs and Mayans suddenly share more things?
Aztec and maya from aoe2 share the exact buildings and units, thatās why. But yes I would prefer if they do something very unique for each civ of course
Maybe MS focusing on AoMR as testing ground before AoE 5. I think if they ever make AoE 5 it will likely return to the Classical Age, they also have a lot of experience to with AoEO.
I think the classical age is the least likely setting fo AoE5 since itās the most common in the series.
AoE1 (AoE2 RoR), AoE2 Chronicles, AoEO and AoM(R) are all antiquity more or less.
AoE2 and AoE4 are Medieval but there is no Early Modern game in the series that is still being supported anymore since they discontinued AoE3DE.
But who knows. We donāt even know if they are really working on an AoE5, maybe they are doing something completely different.
Maybe a fantasy or scifi themed game with AoE mechanics similar to how AoM is AoE with mythology.
If there is a new game, I really doubt it will be a āfantasyā Age of Empires. That would be a very bad idea. Thereās a huge risk of splitting the base of the AOM community and the new game. Mythology can be considered fantasy and many mythological creatures are included in fantasy worlds.
For me it would be either an age of empires in the ancient period or an age of empires after the Renaissance period.
Tbh I donāt think they will touch post-rennisance for the same reason AOE3 was the first game on the chopping block; they find it a problematic setting and donāt want to get too in to it. And AOE1 is the only devoted ārealā ancient/classical era game and its dead so I think if an AOE5 happened it would be ancient. But tbh iād rather they focus on AOE2 (with better DLCs than the 3k fiasco) and AOMR than making a new AOE5.
I donāt think itās that problematic if they donāt focus on colonialism like AoE3 did.
If they focus on internal conflicts within Eurasia itās a lot less controversial.
I donāt think rise of the Ottomans/Mughals/Persia, 30 years war or Napoleon will be that problematic.
Way less then the 1000 WW2 games being released every singe year.
After learning about certain events revealed by Sandy Petersen from when he was making The WarChiefs, at least in my opinion, the DLCās cancellation is less about sales and players and more about political and social issues.
What can a man who no longer works on AoE development and an expansion from almost 20 years ago reveal? Current developers may be facing the same challenges.
Microsoft had problems with and because of Age 3 from the beginning. They didnāt like the possibility of native people being eliminated because it could offend Native American minorities. On the contrary, a Sioux community was offended by the opposite; they wanted their digital namesakes to be playable and, in their words, āto live or die according to their skills and strengths.ā But the DE showed us that Microsoft really didnāt learn anything and continued to maintain the same mentality.
To be polite, this game deals with a difficult time to portray, given that many criticize, glorify, or deny the events that occurred during the colonial era, and Microsoft has simply tried to wash its hands of this game. So, in my opinion, they did what they always wanted to do: get rid of a game whose themes they find uncomfortable (guess why Age 4 is medieval instead of the late 19th to early 20th centuries). I see the issue of abandoning Age 3 as due to a special situation, so I really think AoM could continue to expand.
AoM2 > AoE5 for me personally