E3 2019

[Imperial Noob]

I like the phrase "quasi-ethical"

[Riotcoke]

They're making aoe2 a mess. You have aoe2 nilla, aoc expansion, then African expansion, aoe2 HD , and now aoe2 de lol wtf

Not entirely accurate, if you're talking about different balances then there are 3 options: Age of Kings, AoE2:The Conquerors and AoE2 with all expansions.
If you're talking about different platforms then there is Userpatch, AoE2:HD and AoE2:DE.
And if you're talking about all the different expansions then there's Age of Kings, The Conquerors, The Forgotten, African Kingdoms, Rise of the Rajas and the newly announced expansion.
These things still split up the community, but it's not split in as many ways as you describe.

I also have some hope that it will be possible to upgrade the HD version with some discount to the DE version, so that the split will remain as minimal as possible but we'll have to see.

Btw: not saying Microsoft hasn't milked AoE2 with the HD edition, because they have.

What even changes with age 2 hd, it's not a huge amount right?

[lemmings121]

The GaaS model is kinda expected at this point; I think that it can be done in a quasi-ethical way. I'd go as far as to say that it's been so expected that a AAA multiplayer game will have some form of long-term monetization that there's not really any new information gained to learn that it will indeed have it. Plus, a lot of my friends are excited at the idea of some forms of microtransactions in various multiplayer games as a form of personal expression. A lot of my friends own the hot anime waifu skin of all their favorite League/HotS champions and can live with paying a premium to do so. Again, speaking for my friends here.

Squad-based gameplay isn't something that be surprised to see out of Relic. I'm not enthusiastic about it, although I did enjoy Company of Heroes and CoH2 and still play a few games of the latter sometimes. Squad-based gameplay plus a time period shift to WW1 or 2 era would make the game sound very similar to a hypothetical CoH3 though, which is something that I'd like to see but not necessarily something that I'd liked to see called AoE4.

Something that Relic did that I didn't like was locking certain factions behind a DLC paywall and then allowing players with these extra factions to play ladder games against players without them. That's become a popular monetization model due to League that doesn't work nearly as well in an RTS. One could imagine new civs being released every season that cost an additional 20 Microsoftbux each and that are conveniently (or even accidentally) tier 1 competitive civs.

So true. News civs behind paywall everymonth is awfull and will make sure that the (already traditionally bad) balance will be always broken. Also, personally i think one of the pillars of rts should be a game were both sides have acces to the same tools. you find japan op? ok, just change to jap next game, glhf.

We can only hope that the guys in charge wont follow the expected tought process: "hey, look at previous RTS games that used GAAS: SC2 and AOEO, which should we copy? lets go with aoeo, thats sounds smart"

[supernapoleon]

Honestly, don't buy the game if it has microtransactions. I remember Battlefront 2 had a lot, but there was such a big player protest so that they banned them again and only left them for skinns (that you can earn by playing).

[nimanoe]

What even changes with age 2 hd, it's not a huge amount right?

Yeah, the most important changes are the expansion packs with new civs, campaigns and balance updates.
The game itself is pretty much unchanged, except from suppurt for widescreen monitors (which was already possible with userpatch).
The pathing is actually worse on the HD version and the game has a lot of bugs still to this day.

[Ting]

The GaaS model is kinda expected at this point; I think that it can be done in a quasi-ethical way. I'd go as far as to say that it's been so expected that a AAA multiplayer game will have some form of long-term monetization that there's not really any new information gained to learn that it will indeed have it. Plus, a lot of my friends are excited at the idea of some forms of microtransactions in various multiplayer games as a form of personal expression. A lot of my friends own the hot anime waifu skin of all their favorite League/HotS champions and can live with paying a premium to do so. Again, speaking for my friends here.

Squad-based gameplay isn't something that be surprised to see out of Relic. I'm not enthusiastic about it, although I did enjoy Company of Heroes and CoH2 and still play a few games of the latter sometimes. Squad-based gameplay plus a time period shift to WW1 or 2 era would make the game sound very similar to a hypothetical CoH3 though, which is something that I'd like to see but not necessarily something that I'd liked to see called AoE4.

Something that Relic did that I didn't like was locking certain factions behind a DLC paywall and then allowing players with these extra factions to play ladder games against players without them. That's become a popular monetization model due to League that doesn't work nearly as well in an RTS. One could imagine new civs being released every season that cost an additional 20 Microsoftbux each and that are conveniently (or even accidentally) tier 1 competitive civs.

So true. News civs behind paywall everymonth is awfull and will make sure that the (already traditionally bad) balance will be always broken. Also, personally i think one of the pillars of rts should be a game were both sides have acces to the same tools. you find japan op? ok, just change to jap next game, glhf.

We can only hope that the guys in charge wont follow the expected tought process: "hey, look at previous RTS games that used GAAS: SC2 and AOEO, which should we copy? lets go with aoeo, thats sounds smart"

Does SC2 do so well as GaaS? Ive heard it has lost many players. Even if they keep it cosmetic only for the monetization, I sure hope there'd be a turn off button because some of the skins can look childish and break immersion.

[lemmings121]

The GaaS model is kinda expected at this point; I think that it can be done in a quasi-ethical way. I'd go as far as to say that it's been so expected that a AAA multiplayer game will have some form of long-term monetization that there's not really any new information gained to learn that it will indeed have it. Plus, a lot of my friends are excited at the idea of some forms of microtransactions in various multiplayer games as a form of personal expression. A lot of my friends own the hot anime waifu skin of all their favorite League/HotS champions and can live with paying a premium to do so. Again, speaking for my friends here.

Squad-based gameplay isn't something that be surprised to see out of Relic. I'm not enthusiastic about it, although I did enjoy Company of Heroes and CoH2 and still play a few games of the latter sometimes. Squad-based gameplay plus a time period shift to WW1 or 2 era would make the game sound very similar to a hypothetical CoH3 though, which is something that I'd like to see but not necessarily something that I'd liked to see called AoE4.

Something that Relic did that I didn't like was locking certain factions behind a DLC paywall and then allowing players with these extra factions to play ladder games against players without them. That's become a popular monetization model due to League that doesn't work nearly as well in an RTS. One could imagine new civs being released every season that cost an additional 20 Microsoftbux each and that are conveniently (or even accidentally) tier 1 competitive civs.

So true. News civs behind paywall everymonth is awfull and will make sure that the (already traditionally bad) balance will be always broken. Also, personally i think one of the pillars of rts should be a game were both sides have acces to the same tools. you find japan op? ok, just change to jap next game, glhf.



We can only hope that the guys in charge wont follow the expected tought process: "hey, look at previous RTS games that used GAAS: SC2 and AOEO, which should we copy? lets go with aoeo, thats sounds smart"

Does SC2 do so well as GaaS? Ive heard it has lost many players. Even if they keep it cosmetic only for the monetization, I sure hope there'd be a turn off button because some of the skins can look childish and break immersion.

It used to be just pay full price and play, just as a traditional game, but after ~~6? years it was getting old and losing public and they decided to go for the gaas route: now the competitive multiplayer is 100% free, any civ or map or new patch for MP is free. Part of the singleplayer/coop is free, but they started selling "heroes" for coop content, campaings for single player, voice packs, etc. It made the numbers grow and the game is bigger then before, but will never reach lauch year numbers for sure.

They also sell skins for mp, and indeed, sometimes I wish I could turn them off, but they dont give you that option.

As far as microtransactions go, I cant imagine a better way to monetize a rts game.
Imagine the shit show if aoe4 anounces with "buy the season pass today to start each game with 100 extra wood for a quick start in your empire!!"

[gibson]

Tbh I'd love for aoe4 to have skins and a battle pass, not even kidding.

[RefluxSemantic]

Games as a Service is a pretty broad concept. You can go Anthem/Fallout 76 style, where you release an unfinished shitty game and then claim you have some sort of roadmap to slowly make it better. It can also be like dota, LoL, overwatch or the current iteration of sc2: cosmetic microtransactions that make it possible to continuously develop new content (like new heroes or new coop commanders as in sc2). I think GaaS has some negativity surrounding it because some companies take it as an excuse to release a shitty unfinished game. GaaS doesn't necessarily mean it'll be a greedy microtransactionfest though. One can hope. It'll probably kill the game if they put strong gameplay affecting gear behind a paywall/extreme grind or make the civs unlockable at a very heavy price. But let's stay positive: they did this with aoeo and it completely backlashed, so I want to believe they have to be aware that this is a poor strategy for a game like age of empires.

About squads: it'd make me extremely sad. CoH is a fun game sure, but it's more about positioning around the obstacles on the map. It's just really different from a macro-based RTS like aoe. To be honest I think individual unit control is one of the defining qualities of a game like age of empires. If you're going to remove that I don't even know if the new game should be considered an age of empires game at all. I really don't think aoe can work in a modern time either, as the core concepts of villagers and 3-4 resources (food wood gold/coin and stone) seems to also be one of the defining aspects for age of empires. I am still worried they will try to make it a world war game. Just 5 more days until Microsoft's E3 conference. I hope we get some answers. I really hope they reveal something that confirms we get something similair to aoe2 or aoe3.

[Goodspeed]

Omg they got gibson

[Imperial Noob]

what is a "battle pass"? I think I'm too quaint for this

[kami_ryu]

what is a "battle pass"? I think I'm too quaint for this

I was about to ask the same question

[lemmings121]

what is a "battle pass"? I think I'm too quaint for this

Some games like battlefield will sell the game for 100usd. but if you buy the "battle pass" for 200usd you already start the game with a m16 rifle against the peasants who bought the standard version and start with a rusty revolver.
[spoiler=spoiler]"but you can just buy the cheap game and grind for 1200 hours to unlock the m16 rifle!!!!

god I hate those games.[/spoiler]

[Ting]

^ Absolute tripe they are. Having played some EA games lately I can describe the experience as a new player with base version in those games as such: imagine you had a sack and filled it all the way to the top with shit and carefully opened the top, asked somebody to tie you around the legs and hoist you from the ceiling above the sack of shit, to slowly drop you in the sack of shit head first more and more. That pretty much is the experience of Battle passes.

[Vinyanyérë]

what is a "battle pass"? I think I'm too quaint for this

Some games like battlefield will sell the game for 100usd. but if you buy the "battle pass" for 200usd you already start the game with a m16 rifle against the peasants who bought the standard version and start with a rusty revolver.
[spoiler=spoiler]"but you can just buy the cheap game and grind for 1200 hours to unlock the m16 rifle!!!!

god I hate those games.[/spoiler]

This probably exists in some form, but "Battle Pass" as gibson was likely referring to it means a monetization scheme where you pay some amount at the start of every season and get access to new unlockables. Popularized by Fortnite, where you can buy the pass, and, through playing the game, unlock new skins/emotes/parachutes/etc. Not buying the pass usually means you don't have an alternative route to get these things. Different from systems where you can pay money to speed up your progression through the unlockables.

[fightinfrenchman]

I still don't understand what "lootboxes" are or why they're bad

[RefluxSemantic]

what is a "battle pass"? I think I'm too quaint for this

Some games like battlefield will sell the game for 100usd. but if you buy the "battle pass" for 200usd you already start the game with a m16 rifle against the peasants who bought the standard version and start with a rusty revolver.
[spoiler=spoiler]"but you can just buy the cheap game and grind for 1200 hours to unlock the m16 rifle!!!!

god I hate those games.[/spoiler]

Popularized by Fortnite

"A battle pass is a type of video game monetization that provides additional content for a game usually through a tiered system, rewarding the player with in-game items by playing the game and completing specific challenges. Inspired by the season pass ticketing system and originating with Dota 2 in 2013, the battle pass model gained more use as an alternative to subscription fees and loot boxes beginning in the late 2010s."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_pass

The concept is much older than Fortnite..

[Vinyanyérë]

Show hidden quotes

what is a "battle pass"? I think I'm too quaint for this

Some games like battlefield will sell the game for 100usd. but if you buy the "battle pass" for 200usd you already start the game with a m16 rifle against the peasants who bought the standard version and start with a rusty revolver.
[spoiler=spoiler]"but you can just buy the cheap game and grind for 1200 hours to unlock the m16 rifle!!!!

god I hate those games.[/spoiler]

Popularized by Fortnite

"A battle pass is a type of video game monetization that provides additional content for a game usually through a tiered system, rewarding the player with in-game items by playing the game and completing specific challenges. Inspired by the season pass ticketing system and originating with Dota 2 in 2013, the battle pass model gained more use as an alternative to subscription fees and loot boxes beginning in the late 2010s."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_pass

The concept is much older than Fortnite..

"The popularity of these passes grew significantly in 2018 with the use in Epic Games's Fortnite Battle Royale. Its runaway success on a scale rarely seen before drew great interest towards its monetization methods." from the same article. I wasn't making a claim about it's origins.

[kami_ryu]

^served

[gibson]

Battle passes and cosmetic items have been proven to to be help maintain players interest in a game and keep people playing longer

[Mitoe]

As long as it doesn't affect gameplay in any way it's good IMO.

[bobabu]

Battle passes and cosmetic items have been proven to to be help maintain players interest in a game and keep people playing longer

Yesh @gibson wants his female settlers to wear hot pants and no shirt. So he can make them carry hard wood. And his warriors to have long golden swords.

[kami_ryu]

Battle passes and cosmetic items have been proven to to be help maintain players interest in a game and keep people playing longer

yeah but I don't like the rubbery feel

[Imperial Noob]

what is a "battle pass"? I think I'm too quaint for this

Some games like battlefield will sell the game for 100usd. but if you buy the "battle pass" for 200usd you already start the game with a m16 rifle against the peasants who bought the standard version and start with a rusty revolver.
[spoiler=spoiler]"but you can just buy the cheap game and grind for 1200 hours to unlock the m16 rifle!!!!
god I hate those games.[/spoiler]

$100? $200?
that's crazy
nilla aoe3 had the cost of maybe $25

[Riotcoke]

Age 4 will be £40, or like $60. Not a doubt in a mind about it.