I won’t go into what makes the game feel lackluster, there are numerous thread for that already. But if I had to summarize, poor cartoony graphics, unresponsive units, bad UI and too few release civs are all major issues with the game. I do not own the game so I might be missing more stuff that isn’t apparent from watching content creators.
How is this game $60? To me it looks like a $30 game, lackluster both in terms of content and UI/graphics and attempting to moneygrab people who have nostalgia toward the AoE franchise and happen to be 30+ year olds, so for them $30 and $60 is the same price.
It’s preposterous the game got positive reviews by most opinion leaders/magazines also, I don’t get on what basis it has 85% average. A game like SC2 looks comparable and is far older than this 2021 product.
Compare this prizing with other games and it doesn’t feel like its too much. FIFA for 60 every year? 80 bucks for brand new 10hour-long ps5 game? How much different is any yearly COD game in terms of content?
I don’t know in what world most people live that complain about 60€/$ for AA games that were in development for years.
If this game is not worth $60 for you, it’s completely fine, then don’t buy it. Would you buy it if it was $30? I don’t wanna talk about your financial situation but do you really rely on the $30 you would save?
You should rather ask yourself: is this game worth your time? Because the time you invest in a game is worth way more than the “entry price” of $60 or whatever.
PS: I bought this game for two of my friends as well, with delivery for Christmas, its expensive sure… but nothing compared to common titles… and this’ll i’ll enjoy far more than the short 60-80£ titles often delivered today… and honestly game production has increased in cost, yet the price of most games have remained the same. Anyhow it’s ultimately up to each and one to consider if this game is worth it for you… but considering the content, multiplayer and hours those who’ll like this game compared to most single player games these days gives… i’d say 60£ is still a bargin.
Short answer: It’s as expensive as 60€ because people let the gaming industry pull the money out of their pockets.
Because they can sell it!
Soon we’ll see half finished games for 80€ and more.
Look the the graphic card generations of the recent years.
Recommended price increases of insane value PLUS mining price scam on top of it.
Do people still buy 500€ cards at the price of 2000€? Hell yes!
“Please Nvidia, take our money, f*CK us over, please!”
Many honest reviewers agree its definitely not worth $60, maybe 30-40 bucks. A Triple A game should be epic and phenomenal. Only games like Ac Origins, GTA 5, Witcher 3, Skyrim or RDR 2 deserve such a price.
first of all, PS4 is its own market, if PS4 users are willing to spend $8 an hour for gameplay, good for them. I’m pretty sure PC users aren’t.
Niche title and also overpriced if you ask me. Another title that preys on nostalgia or on football fanatics who want to be Ronaldinho from their sofa or whoever the current football god is.
that’s the thing, AoE4 IS NOT an AA game. If it was in development for years, that doesn’t change the fact that to the customer, it seems like a very mediocre product. It doesn’t matter if you had a lot of developer hours put into it, what matters really is the perceived amount of developer hours and that’s definitely a low amount.
yes, I would buy it for $30. For me, it’s not about the money, I can afford $60 also. It’s just that I don’t want to invest my whole budget into games, and I’d rather save money than buy something I perceive of low value. You can apply your logic to argue that a McDonald’s meal should be worth $60, because most visitors could still afford it. But clearly, there is a question of perceived value. For me, this game is worth $30 at most (I’m being generous here only cuz my monthly budget is relatively large, if I was on min wage I would even say the game looks like a $20 game).
it has some cute elements, I like that they made some civs more unique (for example whole Landsknecht/Camel Archer/different buildings etc.). But I also dislike that some civs feel hollow (e.g. HRE) and 8 release civs is definitely too few when you consider that many “unique” units are copypaste of the default model with minimal changes (haven’t seen too many content creators yet but I know that’s the case for Franks, for example).
how so? Developer is as standard of a job as it gets, it takes nearly the same amount of hours to design a physics engine, create textures, etc.
for me, it’s worth $30 at best. I ask to the people who are willing to buy it for $60, why? And why are the reviews so positive? Is it nostalgia? Or there is something more?
by this argument, every “cookie clicker” or “clash of clans” style of game is a bargain when you consider the hours/$ ratio. For some, it’s also about the game being high quality though.
yes, this is how I’m seeing it also. I’m not against paying $60 for an RTS, but this one in particular doesn’t seem to be far better than, say, AoE2:DE which is like what, $20?
wrong, actually if you check like Steam market, most games are $10-$20. Yes they might not look good, but games that are $60 AND worth the money, I think about stuff like Dark Souls 4, with insane graphics, insane FPS you can get, shadings, challenging combat, etc.
consumer curves vary, but for me specifically, I can say that the breakpoint is somewhere around $30-$40. I don’t think if price * 1/2, then demand doubles… but I would expect that the demand would increase, yes. Generally, there is a maximum in such functions, but regardless of mathematical optimization, you also need to ask for a price that doesn’t let people feel like they got scammed after a few hours of play.
no, because it’s the IDENTICAL game to the 2001 release with only updated graphics and a few bug fixes.
also, something very important that can impact the success of the game medium term: since they now shuffled all the building tree, how you advance through ages, what units can be made when (Mangudai can be made in age 2 for example), and which unit counters which etc., this can actually impact the enjoyability of the game in the medium term, since the live version doesn’t seem balanced at all (Franks too strong, Landsknecht priced very improperly, Mongols too strong early game, cavalry-spear 1v1 feels off etc.).
It can take several patches to find the perfect balancing (something that AoE2 more or less has already), and several patches in human days can be 1-2 years.
Graphically, or gameplay-wise? Because I know plenty of AAA games that have a shiny exterior coat of paint (graphics sell), but the gameplay is quite poor. I’d much rather have a solid game that’s fun to play, than a game that looks sweet but is on rails or has a hollow interior
I think AoE4 is going for solid gameplay first; and the more mind-blowing graphics that you look for will come later as an option for people with higher-end PCs. Could be wrong, but just my hunch