Ugh, why won't they just leave old things alone or at the very least, respect the original design?
Microsoft Details Age Of Empires Online Pricing Scheme
- Thread starter Earnest Cavalli
- Start date
Its my understanding that AoM is considered one of the best and heavily undersold. Its easily my favourite and i play it everytime i get sick of the AoeO betaNo_Remainders said:
And 20 per civ may not be? Remember how each game had about 8 civs? well... okay theres not gonna be 8 civs but the amount your paying for a "piece" of the games seems pretty steep. Plus the game is kind of sub-par. The maps feel smaller too for some reason. But thats a personal gripe
Personally, I'm offended that they're using the AoE name to generate sales for their farmville wannabe.
It was hardly a surprise - this information has been front and centre for ages. Two minutes reading about the game reveal the nature of the beast.
Plus, it's only unbalancing in competitive play - it's still a free-to-play time waster as long as you aren't too serious about that.
I wish more games did this, it makes purchase choices much more informed.
Plus, it's only unbalancing in competitive play - it's still a free-to-play time waster as long as you aren't too serious about that.
I wish more games did this, it makes purchase choices much more informed.
So many comparisons to FarmVille to qualify, so little time.
Okay, yeah, I played the Beta for awhile and the actual skirmishes (now called quests for obvious reasons) are fun, mostly a return to the AoE 2 style [for better or worse].
The leveling system works, in my opinion: you start out with nothing on your tech tree and with each level you can unlock new units buildings and techs; yeah, it requires two hours or so of solo questing to get a reasonably fleshed-out civilization, but it's rewarding in that RPG look-how-far-you've-come sort of way.
The overworld element isn't going to be everyone's bag; it's very skinner-box-ish and involves generating resources with which to craft buildings that produce resources and items with which to craft items that you then equip your in-game units with. Every bit as tedious as it sounds, and most rewardingly used by turning off the game for around 3 days at a time--and kind of unnecessary since you get better items much faster just by completing the single-player quests (and/or by paying real money, of course).
Even then, even Epic level gear, while useful, doesn't help you much if you don't know how to play the game; your hoplites might have +30% anti-infantry damage but that won't do you a lick of good if you can't defend yourself until Age III...
Yes, the persistent RPG side of the game draws from social gaming & such, but it's all in service of the intact AoE core.
And yes, you might have to pay to play competitively in random multiplayer matches--but they aren't pulling FarmVille-style microtransactions on us [yet?].
And for the record, I support the cartoony graphic style, if only because my villagers kill cows by punching them in the face.
Okay, yeah, I played the Beta for awhile and the actual skirmishes (now called quests for obvious reasons) are fun, mostly a return to the AoE 2 style [for better or worse].
The leveling system works, in my opinion: you start out with nothing on your tech tree and with each level you can unlock new units buildings and techs; yeah, it requires two hours or so of solo questing to get a reasonably fleshed-out civilization, but it's rewarding in that RPG look-how-far-you've-come sort of way.
The overworld element isn't going to be everyone's bag; it's very skinner-box-ish and involves generating resources with which to craft buildings that produce resources and items with which to craft items that you then equip your in-game units with. Every bit as tedious as it sounds, and most rewardingly used by turning off the game for around 3 days at a time--and kind of unnecessary since you get better items much faster just by completing the single-player quests (and/or by paying real money, of course).
Even then, even Epic level gear, while useful, doesn't help you much if you don't know how to play the game; your hoplites might have +30% anti-infantry damage but that won't do you a lick of good if you can't defend yourself until Age III...
Yes, the persistent RPG side of the game draws from social gaming & such, but it's all in service of the intact AoE core.
And yes, you might have to pay to play competitively in random multiplayer matches--but they aren't pulling FarmVille-style microtransactions on us [yet?].
And for the record, I support the cartoony graphic style, if only because my villagers kill cows by punching them in the face.
Except that anyone else would call the "free-to-play" content for what it is:Keava said:
A DEMO.
If you are so cripplingly limited it is not a full game experience. Many free-to-play models tried that route. And FAILED.
For free-to-play to work it must have 2 important traits: The free-to-play part must allow for a full experience and the paid content must be largely cosmetic or at least give advantages that can still be matched by free players (and lets face it, Age of Empires without tech is not a full game experience), the free content must be engaging enough players end up forking the cash to add flavorful extras. Whenever a free-to-play model is implemented that just offer flat-out bonuses that are impossible for a free player to match it fails. For instance, some free-to-play strategy games offer to "rent" out "administrators" to keep care of your civ/city/empire/whatever while you're out so you don't have to check as often to keep going, but free players can still match it by just checking in regularly.
When you have a supposedly free-to-play game offer flat advantages it what happens is that everyone who is playing free leaves the game tired of losing to the guy forking out more cash and then those people forking the cash get tired of playing a game after the field is leveled because they paid so they could pwn the people who didn't.
You can progressively unlock the full tech tree by playing for...well, longer than I played, but the top-tier techs aren't game-breakers.SandroTheMaster said:
i played the beta, it was... lacklustre
maybe it could have flown if it was less cartoony... as far as i can tell it's being going downhill since aoe3 and aom which was... bearable, though still annoying
i just miss the (relative) realism (in terms of graphics) of aoe2 and aoc
maybe it could have flown if it was less cartoony... as far as i can tell it's being going downhill since aoe3 and aom which was... bearable, though still annoying
i just miss the (relative) realism (in terms of graphics) of aoe2 and aoc
Obviously the, "free" was just to hype up the game- they never ever thought of giving it out as anything useful for free.
Wasn't Ensemble Studio's last project... Halo Wars?!? Yeah, thanks Microsoft, the world really needed (1) A Halo Rts spinoff that wasn't even ported to PCs, making it useless because it's an RTS!!! and (2) A raping of the wonderful old AoE in favor of cartoonish, "give-us-your-money," MMO b.s. that has nothing to do with Ensemble because they surly vowed to have nothing to do with RTS after going through something as asinine as (1).
Sad, too, because I was thinking just the other day of how fun AoE was (Age of Kings was amazing!), and now we will never get to see that again in any way now that GFWL + MMO is Microsoft's new modus operandi for dealing with a beloved franchise. Do they really expect to win over the PC game crowd by catering to people on dicking around on Facebook during work?
Sad, too, because I was thinking just the other day of how fun AoE was (Age of Kings was amazing!), and now we will never get to see that again in any way now that GFWL + MMO is Microsoft's new modus operandi for dealing with a beloved franchise. Do they really expect to win over the PC game crowd by catering to people on dicking around on Facebook during work?
The RTS lovechild that Ensemble Studios made that basically defined every RTS that wasn't already trying to be Starcraft, Command and Conquer, Civilization, or something from Relic tried to be.
That company is gone, and all that's left is an IP that Microsoft wants to milk. The game's a dumbed down version of Age of Empires 2. There's just not much to comment on it about. It's a bland game at best, and was a rehash over a decade ago. It's just crazy to bring back a game like this from a defunct publisher because you want money, but it's just sheer lunacy to think that you can basically do nothing to the game and expect people to pay for it.
That company is gone, and all that's left is an IP that Microsoft wants to milk. The game's a dumbed down version of Age of Empires 2. There's just not much to comment on it about. It's a bland game at best, and was a rehash over a decade ago. It's just crazy to bring back a game like this from a defunct publisher because you want money, but it's just sheer lunacy to think that you can basically do nothing to the game and expect people to pay for it.
Wait. When was this thing announced? I can't beleive I hadn't heard about this. I love age of empires! I was genuinely sad when ensemble closed down. This loks pretty awesome! Why doesn't anyone tell me anything?!
Upon closer expections it appears to be Microsoft beating a dead horse...Goddamn it.
Upon closer expections it appears to be Microsoft beating a dead horse...Goddamn it.
I've played the AOE Beta and its actually a fun game. The graphics are rich if a little "cartoonish" - the aesthetic is simply more cell-shaded on top of it and it looks good for it, with everything turned up. The pricing structure doesn't seem beyond what I expect too much, but..
$20 is probably what's necessary to upgrade your civilization to "Premium" status. That's all well and good, but realize that there are going to be a minimum of 3 civilizations in game, 2 of which have been announced - Greece and Egypt. If the $20 means that ALL civilizations you have will go Premium, that's cool. However, I worry that it will be for a SINGLE civ per pack. Sure, if you only want to play Greek you only pay $20, but if they have all 3 civs out at release we're looking at a potential $60 fee, if you want to play all of them!
"Booster Packs" worry me a little because if they contain new co-op modes, it suggests that those without them won't have access to said Co-op modes. Right now in the game, there are a LOT of single player missions that you can bring in a friend to help. Hope that won't go away. I don't expect something costing $10 to come out every bloody week, but rather each being a mini "expansion" of sorts with new content all over the place
Finally, the "Empire Extras", provided that its "$5 for The Empires Extras Pack", giving you plans for 10 new gardens, 20 new pots, 15 new statues etc... that's fine. However, if EACH pot, garden, pool etc... is a "$5 Empire Extra", then that's going to run up the tab right quick.
I guess there's not enough info right now, but for what its worth AoE Online is a very enjoyable game that "feels" like an AoE title. I do not wish to see it ruined by ostentatious pricing. $20 to upgrade all your current civs to premium, $10 to upgrade any newly released civs beyond the initial 3 to premium, $10 "Boosters" expansions with new units, loot, buildings, shiny, and $5 packs of aesthetics will work.
$20 is probably what's necessary to upgrade your civilization to "Premium" status. That's all well and good, but realize that there are going to be a minimum of 3 civilizations in game, 2 of which have been announced - Greece and Egypt. If the $20 means that ALL civilizations you have will go Premium, that's cool. However, I worry that it will be for a SINGLE civ per pack. Sure, if you only want to play Greek you only pay $20, but if they have all 3 civs out at release we're looking at a potential $60 fee, if you want to play all of them!
"Booster Packs" worry me a little because if they contain new co-op modes, it suggests that those without them won't have access to said Co-op modes. Right now in the game, there are a LOT of single player missions that you can bring in a friend to help. Hope that won't go away. I don't expect something costing $10 to come out every bloody week, but rather each being a mini "expansion" of sorts with new content all over the place
Finally, the "Empire Extras", provided that its "$5 for The Empires Extras Pack", giving you plans for 10 new gardens, 20 new pots, 15 new statues etc... that's fine. However, if EACH pot, garden, pool etc... is a "$5 Empire Extra", then that's going to run up the tab right quick.
I guess there's not enough info right now, but for what its worth AoE Online is a very enjoyable game that "feels" like an AoE title. I do not wish to see it ruined by ostentatious pricing. $20 to upgrade all your current civs to premium, $10 to upgrade any newly released civs beyond the initial 3 to premium, $10 "Boosters" expansions with new units, loot, buildings, shiny, and $5 packs of aesthetics will work.