Trending Games | ArcheAge | World of Warcraft | Destiny | Guild Wars 2

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,856,468 Users Online:0
Games:740  Posts:6,240,420
Gas Powered Games | Official Site
MMORTS | Genre:Historical | Status:Final  (rel 08/16/11)  | Pub:Microsoft Game Studios
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download,Retail | Retail Price:n/a | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:n/a
System Req: PC | ESRB:E10+Out of date info? Let us know!

Age of Empires Online Forum » General Discussion » Hmmm I thought Age of Empires online would attract alot of players

4 Pages « 1 2 3 4 » Search
65 posts found
  Terranah

Hard Core Member

Joined: 7/03/04
Posts: 3616

8/28/11 10:37:38 PM#21

I've been playing a lot of AOE 3 lately, but I just play skirmish mode with the computer.  I'm not so sure I'd like playing against another human being.  Also, pay to win is not my cup of tea.  Infact none of the p2p games appeal to me really.  The whole nickle and dime thing is obnoxious.  If a game is worth it, I'll pay the box price...and if the first month is good I sub.  But constantly getting hit up for money turns me off.

 

I am looking forward to AOE 4 though, if that ever happens.  Actually, I'm waiting for Stronghold 3.  Release already damnit!

  Terranah

Hard Core Member

Joined: 7/03/04
Posts: 3616

8/28/11 10:40:08 PM#22
Originally posted by Corehaven

Im not really interested in it and I really like Age of Empires. 

 

I actually know very little of the game, but I guess I was immediately turned off because it looks cartoony.  Thats not really what Im used too in regards to the franchise.  Plus you could always play the Age of Empires game online anyways, so Im still struggling to see the point of this. 

 

Id rather just play Age of Empires 3.   I kind of see Age of Empires Online as kind of pointless, and Im still trying to figure out why they even made it. 

  Yeah, those are some good points too.  I think AOE 3 maxed out looks better than this game, which has a cartoony style.  And as you say, AOE 3 has online and LAN play (which I never use).

  Dragim

Advanced Member

Joined: 1/30/04
Posts: 848

8/28/11 10:51:33 PM#23

I agree with the points about pay2win.

99$ for 6 months worth of content, and you have no idea what this content will be?  Give me a break.

Lets see.. a "normal" mmo runs about 15$ a month...

15x6...well, thats 90, so I suppose it is kinda on par with a MMO...kinda...

Any game that a player can spend real cash and have that much of an advantage over me, I will stear clear of.

Too bad too, it looked decent.

As far as the graphics, it reminds me of when they ported Civilization over to xbox from the computer.  The graphics took on a lot more cartoony look.  Wonder if it is just cheaper/easier to go that route, I mean look at WoW :-P.

Yes I had to jab at WoW, wanna fight about it? lol just kidding

I am entitled to my opinions, misspellings, and grammatical errors.

  voltt

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/16/07
Posts: 221

8/28/11 10:56:52 PM#24

big fan of aoe series.

Im very suprised at the comments i read, i understand the art style is not for everyone, but none here seem to even give it a chance. Its a pretty solid game, they merged the rpg and rts together quite well. You can do prety much everything Free, no level cap on free to play players. If you are hardcore pvp'er i would recomend go to a premium civilization wich is ONLY 19.99, not 80+. You pay per civ so if you like egypt and have no desire to be roman then only pay for egypt. The 80 dollar price tag gets you premium for both present civs plus the 2 that they are realeasing this year and any other content they realease in the next 6 months. I agree little on the steep side but if this was reatail how much would it go for??? I tried it out, addicted to it and spent the measly 20 dollars on my egyptian civ, and im lovin it. Still the prem really dosnt kick in until the high lvls on pvp not a huge advantage there. If people would try it , give it a chance, you could have a lot of fun for 20 bucks.

  VIIKING

Novice Member

Joined: 2/04/11
Posts: 44

8/28/11 11:10:39 PM#25

In my opinion they could have done a huge Expantion to AOE2 updated the graphics and added a few new features, Then put some servers up for Multiplayer and bam you have a heap of the old school RTS players back. The new style graphics and the cash shop has turned me off my Fav RTS game series ever.

  Corehaven

Novice Member

Joined: 7/27/11
Posts: 1574

I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you.

8/28/11 11:14:46 PM#26
Originally posted by voltt

big fan of aoe series.

Im very suprised at the comments i read, i understand the art style is not for everyone, but none here seem to even give it a chance. Its a pretty solid game, they merged the rpg and rts together quite well. You can do prety much everything Free, no level cap on free to play players. If you are hardcore pvp'er i would recomend go to a premium civilization wich is ONLY 19.99, not 80+. You pay per civ so if you like egypt and have no desire to be roman then only pay for egypt. The 80 dollar price tag gets you premium for both present civs plus the 2 that they are realeasing this year and any other content they realease in the next 6 months. I agree little on the steep side but if this was reatail how much would it go for??? I tried it out, addicted to it and spent the measly 20 dollars on my egyptian civ, and im lovin it. Still the prem really dosnt kick in until the high lvls on pvp not a huge advantage there. If people would try it , give it a chance, you could have a lot of fun for 20 bucks.

Okay so like Ive already said I dont know a whole lot about the game. 

 

Since you've said you're a fan of the series Im going to assume you've played at least some of the past games if not all.  So in a short description could you tell me what benefits there may be to playing this game instead of say.....Age of Empires 3 ?   Honest question. 

  EricDanie

Tipster

Joined: 2/10/05
Posts: 2244

8/28/11 11:24:42 PM#27

They marketed it very wrong.

It's not really a cash shop in which you buy power, it should be advertised as a freemium game though. One payment for a civilization and you're fully competitive with it though since there's no consumables or anything like that for real money... yet (another insecurity of cash shops, you never know what they might come up for sale next).

The cash shop is very simple right now, and feels more like a free core limited game with DLCs.

You have the premium unlock for each civilization for $20 each and the Defense of Crete which is an area with defend for X waves type of quests for another $20 I think. The release sale is getting both civs and the defense of crete for $40 (which I think is the retail price this game deserved instead of doing the "free to play" marketing, with subsequent civs being sold as expansion packs). And then there's the aesthethic unlock packs, which unlock certain appearance structures to build on your city (unlimited times).

Instead, they threw the "free" hype at RTS veterans along with a kind of non-GPU intensive art style, the result was not very good at least at catering the Age of Empires fans (pretty much a 180° direction). I did support it though, bought a premium civilization and play it casually.

Oh, and the $100 season purchase pack did get extremely controversial. Keep in mind that the price includes the aesthethic packs which represent zero content for you except for making your city look prettier, and at least two more civs plus whatever they develop until then. It's really an extremely unnecessary purchase unless you really want to support the game. A $20 purchase is all that is needed to fully enjoy the game and the $40 release sale includes all the content in the game. 

  voltt

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/16/07
Posts: 221

8/28/11 11:29:24 PM#28
Originally posted by Corehaven
Originally posted by voltt

big fan of aoe series.

Im very suprised at the comments i read, i understand the art style is not for everyone, but none here seem to even give it a chance. Its a pretty solid game, they merged the rpg and rts together quite well. You can do prety much everything Free, no level cap on free to play players. If you are hardcore pvp'er i would recomend go to a premium civilization wich is ONLY 19.99, not 80+. You pay per civ so if you like egypt and have no desire to be roman then only pay for egypt. The 80 dollar price tag gets you premium for both present civs plus the 2 that they are realeasing this year and any other content they realease in the next 6 months. I agree little on the steep side but if this was reatail how much would it go for??? I tried it out, addicted to it and spent the measly 20 dollars on my egyptian civ, and im lovin it. Still the prem really dosnt kick in until the high lvls on pvp not a huge advantage there. If people would try it , give it a chance, you could have a lot of fun for 20 bucks.

Okay so like Ive already said I dont know a whole lot about the game. 

 

Since you've said you're a fan of the series Im going to assume you've played at least some of the past games if not all.  So in a short description could you tell me what benefits there may be to playing this game instead of say.....Age of Empires 3 ?   Honest question. 

 Everyone seems to have there own opinions, its f2p go try it yourself and see if you like. Pretty sure thats why they give you the options of playing it before you have to put any money down

  Isometrix

Novice Member

Joined: 1/06/05
Posts: 252

8/29/11 11:22:59 AM#29
Originally posted by eddieg50
Originally posted by Isometrix --removed to preserve quotespace

      YOu hope it fails, LOL, you sound bitter or something, the game is a breath of fresh air from elvs and such, I am having a fun time , there are so many things to do in the game and for $20 you can create a powerfull nation and hav fun playing PvP, its to bad you are ;missing out

 

I am bitter. They have a great idea here and a fun little game. An RTS with MMO hybrid elements is fantastic and it has great potential. But they fuck up the PvP aspect, make the PvE aspect a grindfest and do everything they possibly can wrong in regards to the payment structure. They're not just creating a game that's doomed before it starts, but they're creating a future. Next time someone has an idea for an MMO-RPG-RTS game, the guys with the money to fund projects will go "No, look at Age of Empires. If that franchise can't do it with a company like MS behind them, noone can".

  Castillle

Forum Bunny

Joined: 10/24/10
Posts: 2681

8/31/11 9:20:14 PM#30
I gunna put my penny in here!



Instead of buying 1 premium civilization i bough age of mythology, age of empires 2, and age of empires 3 which is a WHOLE LOTTA MOAR FUN @_@

i like onlines art style though but i hate 90% of thw game. Like how you have to do a ton of missions just to get to age 4 and theres no plain skirmish mode. Id rather play battle realms than aoeo

''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
( o.o)
(")(")
**This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**

  Gudrunix

Advanced Member

Joined: 3/06/11
Posts: 147

9/01/11 2:36:59 PM#31
Originally posted by EricDanie

They marketed it very wrong.

It's not really a cash shop in which you buy power, it should be advertised as a freemium game though. One payment for a civilization and you're fully competitive with it though since there's no consumables or anything like that for real money... yet (another insecurity of cash shops, you never know what they might come up for sale next).

The cash shop is very simple right now, and feels more like a free core limited game with DLCs.

Totally agreed.  It's a reasonably good game buried underneath horrible marketing.

They could have released a boxed version with the first two civs and some of the cosmetic goodies, along with the free mode labeled as a "demo", and they would have made just as much money off the exact same content without players throwing hissy fits over pricing.  Other civs and campaigns could be packaged into expansion packs.  All the same content at virtually the same prices, and the reaction would have been far different.

If they had been watching Civ5 they should have seen this coming.  Civ players reacted very negatively to the announcement that additional content would be DLC, and that is more or less in spite of the pricing.  The fact is, TBS and RTS players don't like feeling like they're getting nickel'ed-and-dime'd by being charged per piece of content, even if they're actually paying the same prices overall.  Game companies should follow the tried-and-true formula of a retail version with regular expansions, with content split out into separately purchasable DLCs only after players make it clear that that's what they want.

  Vhaln

Novice Member

Joined: 7/07/05
Posts: 3167

9/01/11 2:40:25 PM#32

I was interested at first, but it looks too cartoonish for my tastes, and then I read how greedy the payment model is, and totally lost interest.  Free-to-play needs to mean free to play.  They need to get creative with how to get people to pay for things, so they still earn a profit, but this phony F2P business isn't the way to do it.

When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.

  Gudrunix

Advanced Member

Joined: 3/06/11
Posts: 147

9/01/11 2:48:48 PM#33
Originally posted by Isometrix

I am bitter. They have a great idea here and a fun little game. An RTS with MMO hybrid elements is fantastic and it has great potential. But they fuck up the PvP aspect, make the PvE aspect a grindfest and do everything they possibly can wrong in regards to the payment structure. They're not just creating a game that's doomed before it starts, but they're creating a future. Next time someone has an idea for an MMO-RPG-RTS game, the guys with the money to fund projects will go "No, look at Age of Empires. If that franchise can't do it with a company like MS behind them, noone can".

I hate to say it, but . . . I think I agree.  It's a great idea, but poorly executed.  I am hoping that, as with other MS products, it is experiencing the usual rocky start but will quietly improve over time as MS continues to dump Bill Gates Bucks into it, as they have done with many other products.

I recognize the disappointment a lot of "classic" AoE players have with the current game; it's exactly the same way I feel about Civ5.  At the same time, however, games need to evolve to meet players' interests, so innovation, done correctly, should be rewarded.  The main problem is that it seems that too many game companies do not do a good enough job helping the players feel like they come first as opposed to the $$$.  Yes, game companies need to make money, but the classic trick, as with so much of entertainment, is to put the quality of the experience first, and then the money will follow.  Get the game right, and the profitability will follow (best example at present would probably be Relic, who does a fantastic job on their games and, not surprisingly, seems to be doing quite well as a company).

  eddieg50

Hard Core Member

Joined: 6/22/05
Posts: 1482

 
OP  9/01/11 9:07:23 PM#34
Originally posted by Vhaln

I was interested at first, but it looks too cartoonish for my tastes, and then I read how greedy the payment model is, and totally lost interest.  Free-to-play needs to mean free to play.  They need to get creative with how to get people to pay for things, so they still earn a profit, but this phony F2P business isn't the way to do it.

    How many games are out there which are truly free 2 play= NONE. YOu are looking for a mirical if you are looking for actual F2P. The nonsense I hear "the game cost a fortune" is nonsense

  Vhaln

Novice Member

Joined: 7/07/05
Posts: 3167

9/01/11 9:22:41 PM#35
Originally posted by eddieg50
Originally posted by Vhaln

I was interested at first, but it looks too cartoonish for my tastes, and then I read how greedy the payment model is, and totally lost interest.  Free-to-play needs to mean free to play.  They need to get creative with how to get people to pay for things, so they still earn a profit, but this phony F2P business isn't the way to do it.

    How many games are out there which are truly free 2 play= NONE. YOu are looking for a mirical if you are looking for actual F2P. The nonsense I hear "the game cost a fortune" is nonsense

 

None?  Are you kidding?  I never understand why people say this.  Of course F2P games have an item shop, but most I've played made it entirely possible to play and progress without paying anything at all.  They might make it more of a grind, or a major handicap in PvP, but to just simply play?  Still free.

When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.

  travamars

Novice Member

Joined: 11/14/10
Posts: 452

9/01/11 9:46:56 PM#36
Originally posted by VIIKING

In my opinion they could have done a huge Expantion to AOE2 updated the graphics and added a few new features, Then put some servers up for Multiplayer and bam you have a heap of the old school RTS players back. The new style graphics and the cash shop has turned me off my Fav RTS game series ever.

 totally agree.

  Kelthius

Novice Member

Joined: 6/14/10
Posts: 308

9/01/11 10:12:57 PM#37

I'm still waiting for a Warcraft MMORTS.

  User Deleted
9/01/11 10:19:06 PM#38
Originally posted by Eladi

Problem for this game is that they try and get new player to play the game, its not aimed at old time rts players at all , its basicly a casual rts clone whit simple gameplay that cost more to play fully then the big highly adv rts games that offer more gameplay and have multiplay asmuch as you like for less cost. 

rts gaming is a fairly small market compated to the big fps/rpg markets designing the game for easy accessbut lacking the depth and to a extent realism of modern rts is not going to draw a huge crowd.

Yeah it is sad to note that more polished, fun, competitive ... [insert adjective] ... rts which are B2P plays out better than this game.

Of course, there are 2 sides to this argument.  First the adjective is subjective, someone might like AoE Online more.  Second, the pricing is definitely very innovative, so much so many detest the value for the dollar.  I am one of those who find that playing the old RTS feels better, and is free.

So I am not touching AoE Online unless they have some attractive features in the future.

  User Deleted
9/01/11 10:22:40 PM#39
Originally posted by eddieg50
Originally posted by Vhaln

I was interested at first, but it looks too cartoonish for my tastes, and then I read how greedy the payment model is, and totally lost interest.  Free-to-play needs to mean free to play.  They need to get creative with how to get people to pay for things, so they still earn a profit, but this phony F2P business isn't the way to do it.

    How many games are out there which are truly free 2 play= NONE. YOu are looking for a mirical if you are looking for actual F2P. The nonsense I hear "the game cost a fortune" is nonsense

Lots of games are free to play after paying for the box.  Most RTS are.  You just need a LAN to start gaming.

In the past many games can be set up via dial-up, Master of Orion 2 back in 1997 or so I think, can be done so.

I have korean friends who still play Starcraft, and its free.

There is no nonsense when people do not see enough value for money from any games.

Personally, I do not like Microsoft as a game supplier, or really as a publisher/developer.  That bias aside, I see very little from AoE online that I cannot have from any of the B2P RTS.  I see it to be an inferior product based on the released content so far.

  Robokapp

Hard Core Member

Joined: 11/15/09
Posts: 4646

The only luck I had today was to have you as my opponent.

9/01/11 10:39:58 PM#40

when I played travian I had access to every building and unit and no retrictions.

 

that...was free to play.

4 Pages « 1 2 3 4 » Search