The biggest part of AoE2 community is based around EXTREME casuals playing with a single hand 20 APM after 20 years of daily comp stomps, spending most of their “play time” on forums claiming that the game is unplayable and casual because no 100 civs and no turks/ottomons and larping as historians. There just isn’t enough content for them in this game yet.
A lot of people who actually enjoy this game are taking a break while awaiting proof that Relic is capable (and their suits care enough) to support the game in a more serious manner than the current circus.
Are people complaining about AOE4 player counts again? Idk how people don’t understand it was a hyped RTS no ■■■■ there was a huge playerbase drop. Despite the lack of patch, the playerbased has been consistently sitting ~16-22K for over a month now and has stopped dropping players.
Why are people trying to compare a game that belongs in a really niche and relatively unpopular genre - RTS to the incredibly popular turn based 4x games and roguelikes. Not sure what universe you are living under where you think the numbers would be remotely comparable.
Because before the game even launched a certain segment of the AOE2 community felt threatened by it and have relentlessly tunnel-visioned any chance to declare AOE IV a failure and dead game based on whatever metrics suit them best. You could also see this in action with several AOE2 streamers who switched to AOE4 getting tons of flack from a ‘vocal minority’.
I literally see comments from people like ‘no player color choices?! game’s unplayable!!’
RTS games are cursed by a high barrier to entry, or at least perceived as such, combined with, let’s charitably say, a lot of passionate fans.
Viper and Hera and T90 at the very least had tons of people on their streams complaining when they started playing AOE4 and is one of the reasons Hera has often gone back to play lots of AOE2 due to his fanbase.
Also there have been multiple threads complaining about not being able to select player colours and there were indeed comments about game being unfinished/unplayable where people pointed to that as example.
i can say that aoe2 haters come to aoe2 streams and ask for aoe4.
or post in chat.
Let’s be real. T90 + TheViper and other streamed 6+ years only aoe2. Surprisingly, some people want to watch aoe2?
Vocal minority? 80% of viewer would watch both games, but after come some haters of aoe2 or aoe4 and start spamming. and proving that streamer who were streaming 6+ year aoe2 should stream only aoe4.
Also, “switched” only hera, did not check t90 and viper, but i believe they stream both games.
In my opinion, some random crap from twich(facebook) chat should not be even mentioned.
I watch both, but play mostly aoe4 for now… but…i’m very dissapointed with aoe4.
Summarize aoe4 criticism as “haters” or “hate because colors”. that’s what will do narrow minded hater.
i believe mostly the thread about HOTKEYS and secondary about colors etc.
Not playable not because colors, but other reasons, and colors surely were expected.
You didn’t. You took what I said and changed the words in it, and thus, the meaning. You attributed to me something I didn’t actually say. You made something up that was easier for you to mock. Do I need to go on?
A game doesn’t have to be worse-received than DoW III to be criticised. A game could be perfect and still be criticised. I’m not opposing the existence of criticism. I’m counterpointing specific criticism that relies on bad faith comparisons and a lack of consistency with regards to other games.
Maybe you should spend less of your time being obtuse and sarcastic to folks, that way they might actually see the posts that back that up. Because I don’t see them. I just see you misquoting people (not just me) and laughing at them.
The numbers haven’t “tanked” (see: rest of the post). The game has bugs, and people want them fixed. Every game has bugs. AoE II: Definitive has a bunch outstanding even now.
(and you can consider the game unfinished, maybe it is to you. That’s a threshold that will differ for everyone, I respect that opinions are gonna differ)
But no, that’s not what I mean. I mean “the game isn’t going to be popular”. The game’s popular. I mean “the user reviews are going to be bad”. The user reviews aren’t bad. We go further and further bad, and a vocal minority were very insistent from the very first time they saw the game that it would be bad, and that a majority would agree with them.
That didn’t happen. None of that happened.
Civ VI is one of my favourite games. It’s also not an RTS. Civ V has lower, but equally-strong numbers for a game of its age. Civ IV probably as well, though that’s harder to tell as I think non-Steam copies still work.
Civ VI did great, and I loved the job the developers did with it. Turns out I like popular games too, what a shocker. I just like games man, I don’t know what to tell you. Sometimes I like unpopular ones. It happens, just like with movies and music.
And? You should still consider all sources for the game’s activity. Or you should focus on the PC for both. It’s 2021, it’s not 2004 where everyone has dial-up Internet. Halo has been on the PC for years. A game with Infinite’s retention should - if you’re being unbiased - mirror your concerns and claims of Age IV tanking. But here you are, trying to find excuses.
And here’s the funniest thing. You didn’t have to. You could’ve just agreed Infinite had worrying numbers and moved on. But you didn’t, because you’re too invested in the belief that Age IV is tanking and that a similar % retention loss must mean “bad”. So you’re trying to explain away Infinite instead of recognising that maybe your point wasn’t as strong as you thought it was.
Games aren’t just “console” or “PC” anymore. You’re relying on dated comparisons, and then telling me I’m getting them wrong. Games are multiplatform now, often first and foremost. Exclusives are getting increasingly negative press at times. Cross-play is becoming more common.
You’re consistently missing the point that this applies to all new games. Feel free to worry about it if you care about Age IV (which is . . . not the impression I get, but I know others do), but you’re comparing it to a remastered version of a 20 year old game with an established community and competitive scene. You’re not going to see the same drop-off with Definitive because it literally inherited the community.
We’re talking about activity. If 20% of players didn’t pass the first region in Hades (which you clear in the first playthrough of the game), and 40% didn’t get through the third . . . that’s a lot of players dropping off. That’s the line you’re mocking r.e. Age IV going downwards - for another game. Because it’s natural. Because it happens to every new game (like I already pointed out).
Weird, more strawmen. It’s almost like you don’t have an argument if you don’t mischaracterise mine
I haven’t tried to argue DoW III was doing good in a long time. I wanted it to do well. I supported the developers trying to satisfy the playerbase. But it didn’t work out. You’d know this, had you bothered to actually read my post properly
Don’t pretend you didn’t see the amount of “have patience because they are dealing with something extremely intricate and they have their grand plan and you need to know how games and products are managed before criticizing and you cannot compare it to how other games are handled” on this forum when it took weeks to fix some game-breaking bugs.
Or maybe you’re not pretending because you don’t have a mirror?
Maybe you should also spend less time patrolling the forum as you have already been enjoying the game so much.
I have seen posts like that. I have no idea how it relates to your choice to mock people, myself included.
Making games is complicated. But likewise, it’s understandable for players to want bugs fixed. That said, personally, if I see people talking as though they know the code, or the proficiency of the developers, those are assumptions I like to correct. It’s tricky. I’m a software developer myself (and definitely not alone here in being one), but player frustration is real and people shouldn’t be felt as though they’re being put down for being critical. It’s a balance I sometimes struggle with.
Regardless, I can patrol what I want, thanks. You post as much as you want, eh? I just prefer less sniping, and less strawmen, because it doesn’t help either of our frustrations.
Fair enough if you are simply correcting people’s mistakes when it comes to software development (which I’d assume is true at the moment).
I have been on this forum long before AOE4 actual gameplay was revealed and involved in a million arguments about tiny details of the game. Whether it be be unit animation or zooming, there are so many people who jump out with “it is a brilliant choice with the genius consideration of abcde in mind, not the result of lack of time or resources or simple oversight, you just don’t understand how it works”. This continued after launch when it comes to communication, balancing, bug fixing and lacking of basic features. I’ve done arguing about the game itself.
I try to. Doesn’t mean I don’t go overboard sometimes, but that’s a part of making mistakes myself.
And sure, I do like the game as-is. We probably have different opinions on the quality of various parts of it, for sure. But when it comes to games development, I recognise most, if not all, things are the result of a compromise on both time and other resources. It’s often seen as excusing the devs (which I do understand), for sure, but I’m certainly not going to say things are perfect. Some are as good as I could expect, and others I want more of / changes to.
It’s part of why I mention mod tools a lot. I’m both a modder of various games, and someone who wants to see what they’re capable of. The last tools I played with were for DoW III, and while good, were rather limited (by agreement with GW). I’m hoping for more this time around - and I think a lot of folks interested are. So hopefully the devs don’t keep us waiting too long for it this quarter!
You just referenced one of your own posts in which you, in turn, reference a different one of your own posts. Your I Told You So energy is jumping off the page.
I’m a software developer and there is tonnes of low hanging fruit that could be fixed in five minutes on this game which is how I know the developers or product teams never gave a ■■■■.
That’s funny, it’s more like no matter what facts someone present to you, you’ve just decided to not believe it Titanic hit an iceberg and people are showing you ice and you are like “oh just another metric ” by what metric standard would you choose to say the game is doing great I’m curious. Or is your metric just your opinion?
And of course the people who complained before the game launched will complain now. Coz they played the beta. And the game hasn’t even implemented majority of the beta feedback yet. They only JUST moved the dynasty button. A lot of what was seen before launch is exactly what we are seeing post-launch, just it wasn’t so buggy in beta.
If anyone is bias it’s you who has been defending tooth and nail on a game because it’s basics was fulfilled. Missing many features? Who cares. Removed a tonne of AOE features? Who cares. Game’s playerbase nose dived in two months? Who cares. People including streamers went back to old AOE games while AOE IV is still a newborn baby? Who cares. Game is filled with bugs? Who cares. Game fixes one bug and introduces 10 more? Who cares. “I still think the game is doing well”
Maybe because you just want the absolute most basic standards of a game. If a character can move, that’s an A+++ for you. While people’s basic standards are what has been a basic canon in all previous AOE series. That is not present in this game and are actually having to ask for things that were just common sense in every AOE game.
But just because you like being served a plate of raw pasta with raw tomatoes when you go to an Italian restaurant and pay $80 for spaghetti Bolognese, and the waiter telling you “oh don’t worry, we will cook it eventually”, doesn’t mean everyone enjoys that same level of service.
But hey, if watching a MAA swing his sword is your benchmark, I’m glad you are easily pleased.
Yeah, the game industry has higher standards thanks to evolved technology and modern games in every genre wowing their fans with hyper realistic gameplay. While “RTS fans” are happy with plastic looking soldiers and their plastic looking swords, swinging at paper model buildings. With graphics that look like the games been made in 2005. And are happy to toss tonnes of money at it even if the most basic features are missing from the game. We have $6000AUD laptops that have new AI technology such as ray tracing, completely useless for a game that lacks in detail and texture.
When you have a game that’s $100AUD or $60USD, mostly people who like the game or want to play the game but didn’t play beta will buy it. Many people who look at the reviews, or on the fence, or didn’t like the game won’t spend money to get it. But despite that, 2,511 people still spent $60-$100+ on it and left bad reviews. And they are all more than 2 hours meaning no refunds. That’s 12% of the reviewers. But even the positive reviews are filled with just complaints of the game.
User reviews are the most bias way to look at how a game is going. Because of factors such as price which would skew the perception.
Yeah, it’s what a popular game looks like. And it’s not even a super popular game that’s raking in like 100K players constantly. But it is a great example of what happens when developers do WELL. And make a GREAT game. You get numbers like THAT.
If you like unpopular games, that’s cool. Tryina justify that your unpopular games are popular is just desperation.
You focus on its main stations for both That’s where the main playerbase is Oh maybe I should compare android and Apple Store numbers for both of them I’ll go on Origin and see how the games going there
You are just trying to compare apples and rocks. “Oh look! Compare this mostly PC playerbase with this mostly console playerbase!! See the mostly PC playerbase is doing as bad as the PC numbers for this mostly console playerbase!! Means the game is good!!”
And on the flip side, what do you do? You say CIV VI cannot be compared because it is not RTS. LOL. So two PC games that are under the same genre in Steam cannot be compared but two games popular on completely different platforms are totally comparable And you call me bias
Just because it’s available on both platforms doesn’t mean the playerbase is spread evenly There are games that are mostly played on console and there are games that are mostly played on PC. That’s a thing whether you like to believe it or not If you think Assassins Creed has only a 8K playerbase, you are off your socks!
I’m comparing it with modern, good PC games. Indeed a downward trend is normal for games once hype is over. But for a game to go into numbers representative of a niche game, lower than the numbers of its previous niche ancestor, in only 2 months of launch. THAT is not normal. Especially with the situation it launched in and the amount of promotion they did.
But AOE IV achievements don’t rely on progression? You may see a lot of campaign missions unchecked because many people are focused on multiplayer. You will see a lot of multiplayer achievements unchecked because people are mostly focused on single player. So how is that comparable with this single player that’s still got 1M+ playerbase and is genuinely doing well in all metrics.
Yeah no. You’ve been comparing games of completely different platforms to try and feel like your argument has substance. You’ve been using tanking player numbers of games as a way of saying it’s normal. But when you go onto discussion forums about those games, people are commenting about largely being dissatisfied with the game. So maybe Halo’s PC numbers replicate its Console numbers too. Since people are largely unhappy with it.
But you are just looking at the downward trend and saying it is normal. Civ 6 also went from 160K to 25K but no GOOD game did that in 2 months. It took a year for the hype to die down and the playerbase to stabilise. AOE IV has so much content to go through, it took me 400 hours just to finish campaign mode on hard. Yet the hype died almost immediately after launch. By December you were already looking at AOE II DE numbers
But people who can’t see concerning metrics when it slaps them in the face are just kidding themselves
I’m a software developer and I think you don’t understand the logistics of patching a game.
Who’s right? We may never know
Let’s put it this way. There are a ton of things I could fix in a day at my job. But our hotfix schedule is arranged weeks in advance, and we have to notify of any downtime this could cause our clients. There’s a difference between “fixing something” and “getting that fix into production”.
Hey, we agree on something! However, for better or worse, user reviews are used as a benchmark for how well a game is going, even if the binary “good” or “bad” loses a lot of nuance about the product itself. People pointed at the low user reviews for DoW III as evidence that players found it an unappealing game. Logically, if Age IV has a lot of positive user reviews - regardless of any specific worries they may contain - players on the whole find it appealing and think others should get it.
That’s just how it works.
20k concurrent is not unpopular, lol. And neither is 100k concurrent an achievable target for every game.
If it was released on those platforms (and cross-play was enabled) then yeah, you should. If the game was sold on Origin as well as Steam, then yeah, you should. Like, you’re being sarcastic but these are actually sensible ideas?
Good thing I didn’t say that then, eh? Strawmen, made of straw, da da da da da da I don’t know what tune I’m going for here. But yeah, maybe start replying to the stuff I actually said, instead of the stuff you think I said?
My point was you still need to consider player numbers across all platforms and services the game is being played from.
Why?
What other titles do you have to compare it to? What other, modern PC games are you comparing Age IV to in the first place?
My point was to show that a loss in retention is normal. Even a significant loss in retention. You’re the one who’s claiming Age IV is “tanking”, but you haven’t provided a single comparison as to why Age IV specifically is tanking compared to any other modern title suffering a similar loss in retention from launch.
DoW III went down in a pretty straight line. From launch to a coupla months after launch. Age IV hasn’t done that. The rate of loss is slowing, and in fact the playerbase has been stable at between 15k and 25k for some time.
Halo: Infinite has been doing perfectly fine for itself. You’re going to find complaints for a game anywhere. The existence of complaints doesn’t mean a game is bad. Halo was released on PC (and consoles), it’s not like people are bouncing off of it because it’s a bad game just on the PC. It being on the PC has nothing to do with the loss of retention.
Civ VI started at 160k, or however high it was. Age IV didn’t start that high, and has still stabilised not far off of 25k.
I agree that Age IV will probably continue to lose players if literally nothing is done with the game. We’re heading into the New Year and people are expecting updates to the game. I have no problem with that. But I simply can’t see how the retention loss here is significantly abnormal. Like I’ve already said - if it worries you, cool. I understand that. But presenting the game as “tanking” as a rationalisation for the things you don’t like about the game is an exaggeration that helps nobody. To use your words, you’re kidding yourself
Titanic hit an iceberg and people are showing you ice and you are like “oh just another metric 
” by what metric standard would you choose to say the game is doing great 
I’m curious. Or is your metric just your opinion?
That’s where the main playerbase is 
