At the end of the day the devs don't have the final say. If the games are not making enough money for Microsoft then they have no problem shutting things down, reducing budgets and closing the studios.

Originally posted by Artur1HD:

So after abyzmal ending of AOE3 support and making false DLC promises, AOEM small player numbers and AOE4 never crossing AOE2 scores i think we are entering very dangerous mobile centric focus

Is there anythink we can do to shift focus back on making polished good products?
Is there anything we can do to make devs fulfill their promises (especially AOE3 DLC)?

theres nothing one individual can do, it all depends on the sales, if people buy enough dlcs to support development of future dlc, you get more dlcs, if it doesnt, you dont, its a simple equation

As uncomfortable as it probably makes people feel to hear, Xingui is technically correct here: the way to get more of a franchise from a AAA publisher is to keep buying it. If the sales vanish, so does the series.

Is there anythink we can do to shift focus back on making polished good products?

No; that is up to the management at Microsoft and/or the project leads at the developer studio. A game director that wants a more polished project has to convince Microsoft executives that it's worth putting down the money to create such a product. The only way a specific person can do that is to join the dev team, become important enough to lead the team, then make an amazing pitch.

I don't think the AoE3 guys like AoE2 overshadows it at least that's my impression. Not sure how the Mythology players feel, they're probably off enjoying themselves in the corner with that mythical beasts and god powers.

I've always felt Age series has had a bit of a lucky streak with existing and being supported as much as it has been as RTS series (which is somewhat niche). With the DE versions, with tournaments, with new DLC (excluding 1), with patches and balance.

Apparently 3 is suffering more than 2 because of issues with the client crashing more and more bugs. We just whine about the path finding mostly as the major technical issue. We also don't know how much more support 3 will get in terms of balance patches and bug fixes. I'd hope they do for a little while at least.

It seems like developers in charge had few options. Maybe cutting back on support for 3 will help them focus on the remaining games. I think mythology will get a few more updates going forward. I suspect 2 will for some time since it's player base has been stable for a while. I hope and assume the latest DLC did well.

But as it's been pointed out. Sales matter, user count matters. Whatever upper management saw, was not enough of a return on investment. I've not bought any of the DLCs for 3. Clearly not enough others did either.

I saw a really dumb comment by one user saying that they should of gotten AoE3:DE for free because they already owned the original. How some can't put 2 and 2 together that company gets money, company supports product. Company does not get money, they stop supporting product. Not every company is Costco selling hot dogs at a fixed prices for decades as a good will thing.

My little rant/take on the situation. It sucks, I feel bad for players not being entitled about it. Much of the support we've gotten across the games is more than we could ask for. Look at the mess that was/is Warcraft 3: Reforged, a now somewhat usable product after years. Still not what it could of been and is probably one of the most important RTS games ever made (slight bias but DotA created a whole new genre from the tools that were in that game, that's before including the epic campaign, solid multiplayer, other custom maps and the biggest MMORPG ever that followed the lore and world it built up).

The biggest problems with AoE III: DE civs are the tech tree, every civ is required to have a unique leader personality at least on skirmishes, and revolutionary civs. The big and complex tech trees, unique leader personalities on skirmishes, and revolutionary civs are at least part of the reason why AoE III: DE cannot have as many civs as AoE II: DE, because it is harder to add new civs for AoE III: DE than AoE II: DE. I do not think that AoE III: DE is getting anymore new civs as a result of the Polish and Danish dlc being officially cancelled.

So waiting for a Rise of Nations Remake right now is out of the question, considering both the consumers "wanna be competitive in multi", and Microsoft (with overweight license problems) are retarded, right?

Originally posted by Quintem:

I don't think the AoE3 guys like AoE2 overshadows it at least that's my impression. Not sure how the Mythology players feel, they're probably off enjoying themselves in the corner with that mythical beasts and god powers.

I've always felt Age series has had a bit of a lucky streak with existing and being supported as much as it has been as RTS series (which is somewhat niche). With the DE versions, with tournaments, with new DLC (excluding 1), with patches and balance.

Apparently 3 is suffering more than 2 because of issues with the client crashing more and more bugs. We just whine about the path finding mostly as the major technical issue. We also don't know how much more support 3 will get in terms of balance patches and bug fixes. I'd hope they do for a little while at least.

It seems like developers in charge had few options. Maybe cutting back on support for 3 will help them focus on the remaining games. I think mythology will get a few more updates going forward. I suspect 2 will for some time since it's player base has been stable for a while. I hope and assume the latest DLC did well.

But as it's been pointed out. Sales matter, user count matters. Whatever upper management saw, was not enough of a return on investment. I've not bought any of the DLCs for 3. Clearly not enough others did either.

I saw a really dumb comment by one user saying that they should of gotten AoE3:DE for free because they already owned the original. How some can't put 2 and 2 together that company gets money, company supports product. Company does not get money, they stop supporting product. Not every company is Costco selling hot dogs at a fixed prices for decades as a good will thing.

My little rant/take on the situation. It sucks, I feel bad for players not being entitled about it. Much of the support we've gotten across the games is more than we could ask for. Look at the mess that was/is Warcraft 3: Reforged, a now somewhat usable product after years. Still not what it could of been and is probably one of the most important RTS games ever made (slight bias but DotA created a whole new genre from the tools that were in that game, that's before including the epic campaign, solid multiplayer, other custom maps and the biggest MMORPG ever that followed the lore and world it built up).

Where do you guys get the impression that this game is suffering? There are literally 15.7 THOUSAND people playing currently. That's pretty amazing for a 25+ year old game. Game is still updated pretty regularly. AOE2 is going nowhere. Don't care about the others because they simply aren't as good. Age of Mythology on the other hand, is awesome.

Designing civs for AOE3 is a monumental task compared to AOE2/AOE4 (home city tech tree, background art and a unique playstyle even if the civ is European)

This being said, AOE3 DE did itself no favours with some of its 'announcements' before release (see the steam forums restriction), then it got really fishy with the 'free trial' which is evident of an attempt to get higher player numbers

AOE4 civs are all unique but is easier to create as they don't have to do a home city tech tree, variant civs are just silly mishmash with no common themes to do what CNC3: Kane's Wrath and CNC Generals Zero Hour had

Some AOM buyers are still owed 2 DLCs as they released the game with 'promises' before new Steam rules kicked in. Apart from a teaser there is no information and its already the year of the Snake

they released the game with 'promises' before new Steam rules kicked in

Steam no longer sells games with season passes? When did that rule show up? I feel like that should have been bigger news, especially since some games still have new season/annual passes (like R6 Siege).

Originally posted by DJB:

I don't think
Where do you guys get the impression that this game is suffering? There are literally 15.7 THOUSAND people playing currently. That's pretty amazing for a 25+ year old game. Game is still updated pretty regularly. AOE2 is going nowhere. Don't care about the others because they simply aren't as good. Age of Mythology on the other hand, is awesome.

It's more that AoE3 was getting around 7k a day and steadily growing over the last two years. Granted it's less than AoE2, but it's not on a completely different scale or anything.

e: AoM has even fewer players than 3, but they probably won't drop it until they at least get the first 2 DLCs out, since they presold some of it

Originally posted by Jackkel Dragon:

they released the game with 'promises' before new Steam rules kicked in

Steam no longer sells games with season passes? When did that rule show up? I feel like that should have been bigger news, especially since some games still have new season/annual passes (like R6 Siege).

Not quite, but a caveat that you should 'deliver' on the promises and not have it delayed more than 3 months or to an unknown release date, else Valve may take action

Steamworks Season Passes Gudielines

Under delaying or canceling a DLC in a season pass

Even if there has not yet been a customer complaint, Valve may take action if you delay a DLC more than a quarter (3 months) beyond the release window you originally promised.

Originally posted by DJB:

Where do you guys get the impression that this game is suffering? There are literally 15.7 THOUSAND people playing currently. That's pretty amazing for a 25+ year old game. Game is still updated pretty regularly. AOE2 is going nowhere. Don't care about the others because they simply aren't as good. Age of Mythology on the other hand, is awesome.

I don't know if you don't read forums all that often but be careful about jumping to conclusions. Read, and reread posts. If you don't understand ask for clarification.

I said 3 is suffering more than 2. WHICH IS IT.

It (AoE3:DE) has 3 times less players. It apparently has more bugs and issues.

Our (AoE2:DE players) complaints are mostly the dodgy path finding.

Originally posted by Chad:

Ranked treaty has been broken for Age 3 since release. Theirs numerous bugs and issues that they ignore. The new civs will be a nightmare to balance forever. They dont fit in at all with the vanilla civs. Then theirs the blatant lying of having a DLc at redbull tourney when they had actually nothing. Then theirs the exclusion from the Age tournaments, even having age 1 which has almost no player base besides asia. Overall the only thing the company can do is make civs for Age 2, which lets be honest is drastically easier to do. WE ALL knew they LIED about the Age 3 DLC. Glad they finally could admit it. I dont believe they actually ever started it. Crapola company. I expect Floo to be here soon to dismiss any negative feedback of the company.

It was a massive mistake to announce something that had barely even started production. I forgot about the announcement but now recalling it I was glad to hear they were still giving support to AoE3.

It's just 2 dominates the space out of all the games. It's unfortunate. I want all the games in the series to be successful and loved. There will always be the favourite child as it were.

It's just some of the backlash comments are just plain dumb. Completely ignoring economic side of things. It's fair to be annoyed, angry even that DLC was announced then cancelled a long time later. It's another to not understand not enough players or people were buying the DLC for the game.

Originally posted by Quintem:

Originally posted by DJB:

Where do you guys get the impression that this game is suffering? There are literally 15.7 THOUSAND people playing currently. That's pretty amazing for a 25+ year old game. Game is still updated pretty regularly. AOE2 is going nowhere. Don't care about the others because they simply aren't as good. Age of Mythology on the other hand, is awesome.

I don't know if you don't read forums all that often but be careful about jumping to conclusions. Read, and reread posts. If you don't understand ask for clarification.

I said 3 is suffering more than 2. WHICH IS IT.

It (AoE3:DE) has 3 times less players. It apparently has more bugs and issues.

Our (AoE2:DE players) complaints are mostly the dodgy path finding.

Originally posted by Chad:

Ranked treaty has been broken for Age 3 since release. Theirs numerous bugs and issues that they ignore. The new civs will be a nightmare to balance forever. They dont fit in at all with the vanilla civs. Then theirs the blatant lying of having a DLc at redbull tourney when they had actually nothing. Then theirs the exclusion from the Age tournaments, even having age 1 which has almost no player base besides asia. Overall the only thing the company can do is make civs for Age 2, which lets be honest is drastically easier to do. WE ALL knew they LIED about the Age 3 DLC. Glad they finally could admit it. I dont believe they actually ever started it. Crapola company. I expect Floo to be here soon to dismiss any negative feedback of the company.

It was a massive mistake to announce something that had barely even started production. I forgot about the announcement but now recalling it I was glad to hear they were still giving support to AoE3.

It's just 2 dominates the space out of all the games. It's unfortunate. I want all the games in the series to be successful and loved. There will always be the favourite child as it were.

It's just some of the backlash comments are just plain dumb. Completely ignoring economic side of things. It's fair to be annoyed, angry even that DLC was announced then cancelled a long time later. It's another to not understand not enough players or people were buying the DLC for the game.

Sorry. I do navigate forums often. I don't really like being talked down to, but I appreciate the clarification.

Originally posted by DJB:

Sorry. I do navigate forums often. I don't really like being talked down to, but I appreciate the clarification.

It's a rule I follow myself. I don't say it to talk down. As somebody with dyslexia reading and writing are not my strong points. So I'll often reread others posts to make sure I understood correctly and will often go over my own posts a few times to make sure they're mistake free, even then some still slip through.

EDIT: I saw a mistake just after hitting post. Put their instead of they're. "their mistake free" to "they're mistake free".

Originally posted by Quintem:

Originally posted by DJB:

Sorry. I do navigate forums often. I don't really like being talked down to, but I appreciate the clarification.

It's a rule I follow myself. I don't say it to talk down. As somebody with dyslexia reading and writing are not my strong points. So I'll often reread others posts to make sure I understood correctly and will often go over my own posts a few times to make sure they're mistake free, even then some still slip through.

EDIT: I saw a mistake just after hitting post. Put their instead of they're. "their mistake free" to "they're mistake free".

I appreciate the kind and thorough response. I'd like to offer an apology and I understand now with full transparency. I also wanted to mention I agree about the pathing. My friends and I notice this to be a problem with villagers trapping themselves during building.