What’s wrong with The World’s Edge?


If, as some people say, the promised Age of Empires 3DLC is really abandoned for the new promise of the Age of Mythology DLC, then I can only say that these guys have a grudge against money, right?

11 Likes

Retold peaked at a higher player count than AoE III ever did, which means there’s a wider userbase insofar as people willing to buy new content for it goes.

That’s all that matters these days. Profitability.

1 Like

A game may experience a surge in players during a re-release or due to initial hype, but if those players don’t stick around or engage deeply, it doesn’t equate to lasting success or a loyal customer base. A game with a higher peak that doesn’t retain those players in the long run can be far less profitable in the long term.

Profitability should be assessed holistically, considering factors like retention, player engagement, and how many players continue to buy new content over time, not just one-time peaks in player count.

3 Likes

Congrats, you found the next game they are going to shut down. They are going to releas the already promised DLCs, as canceling them would get them in legal trouble, and then its gonna get the Age 3 treatment

2 Likes

The AoMR DLC were already sold. People already paid for them.
They would have to refund people if they cancel the DLC which would cost them a lot of money.

4 Likes

Everything is hypothetical. I’m simply saying that the potential reach is higher, and it’s closer to release, which heightens the chance of return vs. a game that’s been out for a few years and lost most of that engagement.

There are plenty of things that should be done in profitability that often isn’t, I agree.

1 Like

A newly released game will naturally have more attention and engagement due to marketing, nostalgia, and novelty, but what truly matters is how well that engagement translates into sustained revenue. A peak in player count doesn’t automatically mean those players will continue purchasing expansions or additional content.

In contrast, a game that has been out for years and still maintains an engaged core audience—even larger—can often be the more profitable venture. These players have already demonstrated their willingness to invest in the game long-term, whereas a newer, more transient audience might not. If profitability were purely about short-term peaks, then many live-service games wouldn’t prioritize long-term retention models.

2 Likes

OK, you reminded me, and I think you’re right.
But even so, I think it would be extremely stupid and immoral to completely cancel the DLC that has been promised for Age of Empires 3.

1 Like

It is very immoral and upsetting indeed.
Completely ruined my mood.

Just it’s not potentially illegal like not delivering on the AoMR DLC.

2 Likes

I’m not saying it’s “purely” about anything. But the AoE / AoM games are not live service games, and therefore that’s not really a useful comparison.

I’m not saying AoE III can’t be profitable - far from it. I think dropping games in the franchise is unfortunate, even if it’s because they’re having to do some harsh resource prioritisation behind the scenes.

I’m simply defending the facts that a) Retold is newer and b) has a higher peak with which to forecast expansion sales with. As apparently people are using this news to tear down Retold before it’s even had a chance.

AoE III: DE has had many chances. I wish it had more. I also wish the developers didn’t have to split focus and resources between games in the franchise.

Newer doesn’t inherently mean more viable for expansions. AOM Retold’s player retention drops sharply after launch, its ‘higher peak’ is meaningless in forecasting expansion sales. AoE III: DE, despite being older, has an larger established, dedicated audience that has already demonstrated a willingness to purchase multiple expansions—an objectively stronger indicator of future profitability than a single peak in concurrent players.

It’s not about tearing down AOM Retold but about questioning the assumption that its early numbers alone justify prioritizing it over AoE III: DE. If resource prioritization is necessary, the decision should be based on long-term engagement trends, not just the initial wave of hype.

2 Likes

You’re making too many assumptions. Newer is inherently more viable. It’s a social effect. It has better SEO retention. It’s more likely featured on the Steam selling lists (which has a measurable impact on discovery).

Retention translating into sales is of course speculative. But you cannot say that a game with 5k concurrent is going to provide equal or better RoI on a game that had a ton of buy-in at launch, not so long ago. You can hope. But you don’t have the data to ascertain that.

I reckon the devs / publishers do. If AoE III was more profitable, then we’d see more AoE III: DE support. That’s all there is to it. Everything else is rationalisations based on information neither of us have.

1 Like

You accuse me of making assumptions, yet your entire stance is built on speculation. You claim that ‘newer is inherently more viable’ due to social effects, SEO retention, and Steam visibility—yet these are not guarantees of long-term profitability, A high launch peak does not inherently translate into sustained engagement or sales.

In contrast, we do have tangible data: AoE III: DE consistently maintains a stable concurrent player base, whereas AOM Retold saw a rapid player drop-off after launch. That is an observable fact, not an assumption. Retention matters because expansions rely on an engaged player base willing to spend money over time. If Retold hemorrhages players quickly, then its ‘potential reach’ is a moot point.

Furthermore, your claim that AoE III: DE getting fewer updates must mean it is less profitable is an oversimplification. Development priorities are influenced by many factors—budget allocations, team specialization, strategic franchise direction—not just raw profitability. The assumption that devs always prioritize the most profitable option ignores the reality of resource management in game development.

if you want to argue based on facts, the reality is clear: AoE III: DE has demonstrated stronger retention, while AOM Retold has yet to prove its longevity. The burden of proof is on Retold to sustain its player base, not on AoE III to justify continued support despite its clear long-term engagement.

3 Likes

There have been precedents in the gaming industry from bigger studios pre-releasing DLCs and not following up on them. So don’t hold your breath.

Yes, I made it very clear that I wasn’t talking about long-term profitability.

I also made it clear I don’t approve of the ending of support for AoE III: DE.

You seem to be casting me as someone who’s trying to justify Retold over AoE III: DE, when all I was doing was pointing out the short-term expectations that could possibly lead Retold to be prioritised.

Talking about Steam visibility isn’t an assumption. It’s something people far more educated than me about how Steam works have shown. The same goes for SEO. “social effects” is basically just short-term memory. The only people hanging around for III: DE will be that long-lasting, enduring fanbase (which should be cultivated).

This isn’t the case for Retold, as a much newer title. Factually. You can cite the drop-off as much as you want, but you can’t infer causation without making assumptions. Just the same as you can’t assume everyone playing III: DE is actually playing the paid version, since it went F2P. There are lots of factors you’re failing to account for, and you seem overly invested in trying to make me pointing out simple facts some kind of attack on III:DE.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Which, again,would be relevant if at any point I had attempted to claim anything about long-term engagement r.e. Retold’s financial future.

I also think that it’s likely that they’ll drop support for Retold once they can. I wish I knew why the franchise was apparently on such limited resources.

Of course it’s not entirely impossible, but it’s expensive and always very unpopular.
They showed gameplay almost half a year ago by now.
They have not made anything for AoE2 (Chronicles was made by a different team) or AoE4 in that tine either, so what else were they working on?
I have not heard about any layoffs at WorldsEdge or ForgottenEmpires.

If they haven’t been working on AoE2, AoE3, AoE4 and AoM, what have they been working on?
I don’t think there is an AoE5 any time soon.

“What’s wrong with World’s Edge?”

Well, looking at the studio head’s LinkedIn page, being “dynamic results-oriented”, “Live Ops Strategy”, “Driving cross-organizational initiatives”, and “Leading through change”.

All of these things absolutely reek of “I used Chat GPT to describe my role because me and the other suits don’t actually do anything important to the development of the games for me to describe in my own meaningless words”.

6 Likes

Im sure the same people axed ranked treaty for empire wars which as you know was a massively unasked feature dozens ended up using

Imagine if the time for stuff like that was spent elsewhere. Hindsight is 20/20

2 Likes

Probably being paid to put more bugs in the code so people get fed up and leave AoE3.

Wouldn’t surprise me.

1 Like

Why would Microsoft want to pay people to do nothing?
They fired a lot of other developers and closed multiple studios but they spared Worlds Edge and Forgotten Empires.
I don’t think they all suddenly turned into Age of Empires haters that are good at lying to Microsoft about what they are doing.

The assumption that people at any company just sit there and do nothing while receiving pay checks is pretty stupid. If a company just wants to milk an existing product it doesn’t need employees for it.