I’m duplicating my message here, which the developers simply ignored during a question-and-answer session on discord.

It seems to me that all the people involved in the early support of the game should leave a review of the game reflecting your attitude towards this behavior of the developers

https://gtm.steamproxy.vip/id/gules_wine/recommended/1426450?snr=1_5_9__402

Originally posted by Crow-Sharp:

Seems there were issues with Team17 and the Devs so now they've separated.

Devs gave this news update on April 30 2024:

"First and foremost, we’d like to thank our community for your patience, and apologize for the relative silence over the last few months. While development on Age of Darkness: Final Stand has continued, there have been some major changes on our side which we have been working through to get communications with you - our players - back on track!

On that note, we have some exciting news to share with you regarding our next chapter, and the future of Age of Darkness: Final Stand.

After initiating discussions with Team17 earlier this year, we have reacquired the full publishing rights for Age of Darkness: Final Stand. This will allow us to steer all future development for the game, and to keep the dialogue open directly with our players. It has also meant we’ve needed to bring additional internal community teams across the game, which has taken some time. You may have already seen some new faces in Discord. We want our community to know that we’re here, we’re listening, and we are committed to ensuring regular communication with you moving forward.

We are excited to realize our vision for Age of Darkness: Final Stand, and have some additional updates to share later this week around our future content roadmap, multiplayer development, and our path to 1.0 and the end of Early Access. The first of these updates - ‘Seeds of Darkness’ - will be coming next week, and we can’t wait to share more details around this with you soon, and to continue on this new chapter together with you, our valued community."

this does not justify it in any way, we receive useless updates and will continue to receive them, except for the cooperative mode

Judging by the roadmap, they're going to add multiplayer and then ship the game "as is".

It looks more like Team 17 actually had issues with them, not the other way around, so they stopped funding it after 2 years or Early Access.

Originally posted by Gules Wine:

I’m duplicating my message here, which the developers simply ignored during a question-and-answer session on discord.

It seems to me that all the people involved in the early support of the game should leave a review of the game reflecting your attitude towards this behavior of the developers

https://gtm.steamproxy.vip/id/gules_wine/recommended/1426450?snr=1_5_9__402

pls add support

Originally posted by Carnage:

Judging by the roadmap, they're going to add multiplayer and then ship the game "as is".

It looks more like Team 17 actually had issues with them, not the other way around, so they stopped funding it after 2 years or Early Access.

Which is something that was clear from the beginning - the game copied the foundation from They Are Billions, but had even less vision as to how to develop further than TAB developers themselves. Shame Team 17 tried to capitalise on a copycat game before realising they are shooting themselves in the leg, reputation-wise.

Think its a good game alrady, just waiting for multiplayer at the moment.

Originally posted by Clown Reemus:

Originally posted by Carnage:

Judging by the roadmap, they're going to add multiplayer and then ship the game "as is".

It looks more like Team 17 actually had issues with them, not the other way around, so they stopped funding it after 2 years or Early Access.

Which is something that was clear from the beginning - the game copied the foundation from They Are Billions, but had even less vision as to how to develop further than TAB developers themselves. Shame Team 17 tried to capitalise on a copycat game before realising they are shooting themselves in the leg, reputation-wise.

Its not a direct copy and TAB is copy of other games like Dune 2000 or Dune 2 or Command and conquer. Hell BAR is a total annihilation clone and most love it for that. If you don't like the game and it doesn't meet your expectations, that is one thing but trying to make a claim that its a direct copy cat, no there is no heroes for starters to pick from in TAB. TAB is one of my favorites but the devs did nothing to improve the game after release or add content. More games that fit the same build would come and have. Alien marauder(Abandoned) and Diplomacy is not an issue among other games in the works like Zero Space and Sanctuary. Overall the community wanted TAB to be multiplayer so Age of darkness might just surpass it on several levels.

Originally posted by Carnage:

Judging by the roadmap, they're going to add multiplayer and then ship the game "as is".

It looks more like Team 17 actually had issues with them, not the other way around, so they stopped funding it after 2 years or Early Access.

Knowing Team 17 i highly doubt that.
If at all, then a both sided problematic attitude. But Team17 isnt exactly the reliable publisher and i have noticed several oddities when it came to their publishing branch and lacking support for their devs.
Same goes for Paradox.

I mean, the changes arent really that minimal if you look at the bigger picture and take the framework into consideration.
The game received a voiced campaign mode and will at 1.0 get a functional coop multiplayer, which in and of itself is a selling point as you only have Conan Conquest that is a similar game with coop. But Age of Darkness comes at a far higher production volume.
The factions have been fleshed out a bit.
Enough? Debatable.
And i agree, gameplay wise there could be more variation and depth, functionality and content.
There could be neutral factions on the map, there could be more stuff to explore.
There could be items for heros or meta progression for your heros or a faction, similar to Starcraft 2 coop mode.
There could be a conquest mode as in Northgard with perks you get for your faction.
There could be more towers, upgrade paths (where you have to make a choice between two), more perks during gameplay and in general something you can interact with between your sessions to unlock stuff or improve.

All of the stuff we love to see, because i think we are on the same page. We like the game and want it to be more and its frustrating to not see the game progress towards these goals or wishes.

But with that considered, dont be unfair. I have seen games that took more than 3-4 years to add a mode like multiplayer.
Stardew Valley, Riftbreaker still doesnt have it and they promised the mode for shortly after release, potentially at release.
Thats no excuse and im well aware its a level of whataboutism.
But i think its important to aknowledge that the progress made is not in terms of gameplay content but functionality.
And the progress they made in that area is immense.

All we can do now is aknowledge that and hope that full release will turn this project so lucrative, that adding more gameplay is back on the menu for them.
Im not calling "only leave positive reviews to support them".
If you feel negative about it, voice it, fair enough.
But possibly rethink your own perspective and attitude to a degree and aknowledge what actually has been done.
As its a bit sickening seeing people "the game is dead" on so many games that just received a major and important update a month ago.
And this comes off pretty similar.
"No progress has been made in two years".
It got a Campaign.
It got a new faction.
It got 5 new heros.
It got several new units.
It got new enemies.
It got new buildings.
The map generation was improved.
It received modificators and difficulty tweaking.
Among other things and minor additions.

Thats actually pretty solid for that timeframe and adding multiplayer coop is not a minor task in that timeframe too.
We can ofcourse debate the quality of each. I personally dislike the character and unit design as its a bit generic, but thats also taste, to a degree.
And we can debate whether the campaign was necessary or is well done and again i would say they could possibly have integrated the world and character building into the default survival mode.
Yet its unfair to say "they didnt do anything".
Thats just not true at all.

They took a decent concept and run it to the ground, completely ignoring the easy wins like map generation tools and map editor.

i don't know, i feel like they did fine. The game is complete, you get what you pay for. How much time / resources should a company put into a game that wont generate any more profit? That is, adding free updates doesn't make them money. Once a game is done, it's done. 1.0 usually (or at least used to) mean finished product. This is how cash shops / battle passes became a thing, a method to milk the cow of a game that you're done working on. That said, i, personally, feel the game is in a good and complete state. Multiplayer would be nice, but, not needed. There's a bunch of "nice to haves" like, map editor / workshop so modders can keep it alive, but overall it's in a good state imo.

I literally only got this game because of their promise for CO-OP. my buddy and I both have it and are waiting around for multiplayer. Neither of us care about the story mode or anything else other than MP

Originally posted by aWildAsianHasAppeared:

I literally only got this game because of their promise for CO-OP. my buddy and I both have it and are waiting around for multiplayer. Neither of us care about the story mode or anything else other than MP

survival strategies don't really need co-op, they're aimed at a different audience

Originally posted by Gules Wine:

Originally posted by aWildAsianHasAppeared:

I literally only got this game because of their promise for CO-OP. my buddy and I both have it and are waiting around for multiplayer. Neither of us care about the story mode or anything else other than MP

survival strategies don't really need co-op, they're aimed at a different audience

That's a really personal opinion. I don't think many agree on that.

Originally posted by kongkim:

Originally posted by Gules Wine:

survival strategies don't really need co-op, they're aimed at a different audience

That's a really personal opinion. I don't think many agree on that.

Are you mad? You think survival strategy fans and coop game fans are the same audience? jeeez no wonder people like you think the game is complete