Microsoft Details Age Of Empires Online Pricing Scheme

[Earnest Cavalli]

Microsoft Details Age Of Empires Online Pricing Scheme

To the surprise of no one, Microsoft's upcoming Age of Empires Online isn't as "free to play" as once thought.

In fairness, yes, technically the game can be free to play. However, a new press release issued by Microsoft, lays out the options available to players willing to outlay a bit of cash on the game, and the reality looks grim for those hoping to enjoy gratis content.

Come August 16, PC gamers will be able to download Age of Empires Online from the Games for Windows website for no charge. That's not news.

What is news is that for $20 -- a cost applied either directly, or via the purchase of the newly revealed boxed retail version of the game -- players will be granted a "Premium Civilization Pack." The pack includes "rare and epic gear," unique units, extra in-game cash, an unlocked tech tree and a host of useful civilization bonuses.

In sum, that means players who are spending money are going to have very tangible in-game advantages. That, in turn, pushes players who originally wanted to go the free route into purchasing the Pack just to keep up and so on and so on. The capitalist motives are respectable, but you can see how it might quickly unbalance the game's online landscape.

It should be noted however, that the Premium Civilization Pack isn't the only for-cost option open to players. Additionally Microsoft has announced $10 "Booster Packs," which offer a new co-op gaming mode, and $5 "Empire Extras," which is quite literally a collection of fancy bushes and statues for those who want to add a bit of flair to their civilization.

Like I said, I can respect the motivations here, but I'm very interested to see how it works out here in reality. The Age of Empires series has a legion of die-hard fans, but I don't know if that's enough to counter the impending rage Microsoft is facing by virtue of this cash grab.

How does this sit with you? Is the game now irreparably tarnished with greed, or does this just offer more play options for the really dedicated fans?


Permalink

 

[fgdfgdgd]

I can't really respect the game in general, they take a longer time to make it than 3 or it's expansions and they pump out this? I see it going the Age of Mythology rout, that is to say, quickly forgotten.

 

[Albino Boo]

You mean its just like all those free to play MMOs, who'd of thought that a company would use a proven business model. Its like they are trying to make a profit shook, horror.

 

[KarmicToast]

Everything I have seen about this game looks rubbish. The gameplay has gone to the casual gaming crowd and the graphics look like Worms 2. Let's just call this cash grabbing whore cousin of the great franchise by it's real name: "Age of Villes"

 

[Nikolaz72]

So they use the Age of Empires name to appeal to the older crowd.. Then shit on it.
I wonder if it will die soon or if it will just suck it up and actually become successfull with a demographic it wasnt supposed to target at all when it was first made.

 

[SlayerN]

I've been Alpha and Beta testing this game for about a year and I got sick of the game each time I went to play it again. I was still going to buy it to support Robot Entertainment but with them pushed away I don't have any reason to bu the game. I love AoE 1, 2 and 3 along with AoM and I can't how they've dropped the ball this time.

To those who want to know if you don't pay you cannot get epic gear or start techs. This makes any match played against a paying player unbalanced to a laughable point. while their buildings and units heal themselves and all of their archers hit for 15% additional damage from the get-go you will get a 2% movement speed boost if your lucky.

It's not a bad game I just can't bring myself to line Microsoft's pockets any longer.
(GFWL can burn in hell for all I care)

 

[Wicky_42]

What ever happened to a nice normal retail release with a demo? are they really trying to follow in the footsteps of Evony for christ's sake?! Sony's already done that with Dungeon Overlords, and all money gave you were temp stat boosts - as in, keeping the game generally balanced and at least allowing free players to have fun :/

Not that it was particularly interesting in the first place... if its anything like I expect it to be then it's an undeveloped and boring game type anyway.

 

[Goofguy]

Man, Microsoft could have done so much more with this franchise than make it in to Farmville 2.0. I've been with the AoE series since the very beginning and loved every iteration. Too bad the casual gamer is more important than the devoted fan.

 

[Keava]

Sounds reasonable to be perfectly honest.
You can get the most basic, cut down version for free and fool around with it. For 20$ (so within the price range of low budget titles which usually is 15-20$) you get most of the important unlocks and access to higher grade gear so pretty much the 'core' of game play is available, and finally microsimulations offer you vanity stuff or mission packs.
Sounds pretty.. normal?

From what i've seen from some previews/let's plays it doesn't look that bad. Sure the visuals are cartoony, but since when cartoony is bad? It reduces the minimal PC requirements while not making the game look terrible.

Makes perfect sense for me.

 

[repeating integers]

Well, with all those packs, it still costs you less than a full retail game. It's not all bad.

 

[No_Remainders]

I can't really respect the game in general, they take a longer time to make it than 3 or it's expansions and they pump out this? I see it going the Age of Mythology rout, that is to say, quickly forgotten.

As in, a forgotten jewel?

I loved AoM, but that's off topic.

OT: Shrug. Even if you were to buy the 20 dollar pack it's still cheaper than, say, MW3.

 

[WrongSprite]

I can't really respect the game in general, they take a longer time to make it than 3 or it's expansions and they pump out this? I see it going the Age of Mythology rout, that is to say, quickly forgotten.

The hell? Agree on AOE online, but Age of Mythology was a fantastic game, well received, and still played.

Still, I've played the beta for this, and it really just wasn't very good.

 

[Aidinthel]

those hoping to enjoy a dearth of gratis content.

dearth: scarcity or lack of something

I don't think you meant to use that word.

OT: I can't say I'm surprised. I'm not happy, mind you, but I expected Microsoft to do something like this.

 

[Earnest Cavalli]

those hoping to enjoy a dearth of gratis content.

dearth: scarcity or lack of something

I don't think you meant to use that word.

Good call. Before I drink enough caffeine my brain doesn't know how to use antonyms properly.

 

[bobmus]

Presumably there must be some system in place to prevent new F2P players getting destroyed by paying customers, or else no-one new would get hooked enough to play in the first place? Then as you start enjoying yourself and get hooked suddenly it starts to get difficult, and you start to want the things that cost the money until eventually there's nothing you can do any more without coughing up? That's the only way I can see such a system turning a profit, and on the bright side it probably means it'll be fun for a few hours of free play anyway!

 

[Starke]

I've been Alpha and Beta testing this game for about a year and I got sick of the game each time I went to play it again. I was still going to buy it to support Robot Entertainment but with them pushed away I don't have any reason to bu the game. I love AoE 1, 2 and 3 along with AoM and I can't how they've dropped the ball this time.

Weren't all of those done by Ensemble before Microsoft shut them down? So this is really just a different team, sent in to milk the remaining survivors?

 

[Alar]

Everything I have seen about this game looks rubbish. The gameplay has gone to the casual gaming crowd and the graphics look like Worms 2. Let's just call this cash grabbing whore cousin of the great franchise by it's real name: "Age of Villes"

Did you test on the beta? I'm interested to hear a more in-depth analysis from a beta tester than 'gameplay has gone to the casual gaming crowd'! Please, enlighten us. ^_^

 

[Soviet Heavy]

sounds exactly like Battlefield Heroes. Free to play, but you get shit weapons and it costs hundreds of valor points for weapon rentals. While the battlefunds players get permanent weapon upgrades just to say fuck you.

 

[KarmicToast]

Everything I have seen about this game looks rubbish. The gameplay has gone to the casual gaming crowd and the graphics look like Worms 2. Let's just call this cash grabbing whore cousin of the great franchise by it's real name: "Age of Villes"

Did you test on the beta? I'm interested to hear a more in-depth analysis from a beta tester than 'gameplay has gone to the casual gaming crowd'! Please, enlighten us. ^_^

Read the interviews with the developers saying that they "are tooling it to appeal to a casual market," then check the vids and the screenshots. There, you've been "enlightened" (as you so smarmily put it) to Google. Welcome to the world post-1993

 

[Barbarossa_5]

The game keeps the basic play-style of AoE II, but it is still not much fun. You are basically forced to go through a long line of campaign missions that are very tedious so that your 'home city' (think farm in farmville) might improve. Along the way you are given points in order to unlock units on your tech tree. And if I remember correctly, you would not be able to access the entirety of your techtree with any one home city, so you basically have to specialize each city for a different play style. Furthermore, they had the brilliant idea of taking out things like random map battles, so it's basically either play through the crap campaign or VS mode. All in all, I was not impressed, and will remain waiting for Age IV.