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
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".
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**
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
i love the art style, and because of the good rep the AoE series has, i got interested in this.
then i heard about buying power, and grinding away for power to have advantage over new players.
i totally lost all interest and immediately felt alot of illwill for the designers/company.
RTS games are supposed to be competitive SKILL based games.
when part of the "strategy" starts becoming how much time you spend in the game and/or how much money you spend in the shop, it becomes a huge mockery of the genre, and if it were to become popular, would heavily pollute the genre with bandwagon titles.
I am bitter............snip.......... 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".
great point. the same way the original wave of so-called "MMOFPS" games messed up the public mindspace for the very idea of an MMOFPS, and people STILL haven't quite recovered from that, here some 7-8 years later.
I love the idea of the game MMO/Strategy and I can even deal with a item mall but they pushed the item mall a little to far IMO. It's like buying a new Xbox360 game when it first comes out at $60... I'll wait a couple months and pick it up for $30 when the price drops or even $20 if it goes that far. I'm just going to wait for the item mall prices to drop, then I'll jump in.
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!
This is a lot like where I am coming from. I've enjoyed the AoE series thus far. It's my 'go-to' game when I am traveling for work. I can plug in at the airport (if I get a seat near an outlet at least) or hotel and fire up a skirmish or campaign and just kill some time while having a bit of fun. Having the option to play online was nice, but not something I really used. When traveling I generally avoid public wi-fi and when at home I have other MMOs I play. Therefore, while I generally like the AoE brand, this particular iteration of it isn't for me,
Perhaps another way to look at it is that, based on my preferred play style, there is just no value in AoE:Online for me. Couple that with the seemingly common complaints about the cash shop for this particular game and I have even less motivation to check it out.
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers. Do something wrong, no one forgets" -from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
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
TF2 says hi,
Oh, you meant RTS games? League of Legends says hi.
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.
'after paying for the box" with AOE you dont pay for a box, thus free
AOE players want a real RTS not some mmorpg wannabe this game is disgusting. Im not wasting time imo some should buy the aoe license and make a AOM 2 or AOE IV. If not im still gonna play AOE 2 and 3.
Pay2win? really? is this the first f2p game you people have ever played. 20$ is the max you need to spend to be able to compete with the top players. It's like crying that you can't compete in wow pvp with a trial account. Everytime I come to this site the forums are filled with insane exaggerations on how much you "need" to spend in w.e f2p game to be able to compete....
p2w rip off games of once great franchises aren't working. This game is just a disgrace, captastic graphics, p2w and not a real RTS so why are people surprised it didn't take off?
The writting has been on the wall forever.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play." "Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
Comments
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
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".
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**
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.
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.
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).
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.
totally agree.
I'm still waiting for a Warcraft MMORTS.
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.
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.
i love the art style, and because of the good rep the AoE series has, i got interested in this.
then i heard about buying power, and grinding away for power to have advantage over new players.
i totally lost all interest and immediately felt alot of illwill for the designers/company.
RTS games are supposed to be competitive SKILL based games.
when part of the "strategy" starts becoming how much time you spend in the game and/or how much money you spend in the shop, it becomes a huge mockery of the genre, and if it were to become popular, would heavily pollute the genre with bandwagon titles.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
great point. the same way the original wave of so-called "MMOFPS" games messed up the public mindspace for the very idea of an MMOFPS, and people STILL haven't quite recovered from that, here some 7-8 years later.
hopefully FireFall will turn that around.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
I love the idea of the game MMO/Strategy and I can even deal with a item mall but they pushed the item mall a little to far IMO. It's like buying a new Xbox360 game when it first comes out at $60... I'll wait a couple months and pick it up for $30 when the price drops or even $20 if it goes that far. I'm just going to wait for the item mall prices to drop, then I'll jump in.
This is a lot like where I am coming from. I've enjoyed the AoE series thus far. It's my 'go-to' game when I am traveling for work. I can plug in at the airport (if I get a seat near an outlet at least) or hotel and fire up a skirmish or campaign and just kill some time while having a bit of fun. Having the option to play online was nice, but not something I really used. When traveling I generally avoid public wi-fi and when at home I have other MMOs I play. Therefore, while I generally like the AoE brand, this particular iteration of it isn't for me,
Perhaps another way to look at it is that, based on my preferred play style, there is just no value in AoE:Online for me. Couple that with the seemingly common complaints about the cash shop for this particular game and I have even less motivation to check it out.
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers.
Do something wrong, no one forgets"
-from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
TF2 says hi,
Oh, you meant RTS games? League of Legends says hi.
'after paying for the box" with AOE you dont pay for a box, thus free
It uses Games for Windows Live. I think a lot of people greatly dislike this service, and wants to avoid it.. even at no cost.
AOE players want a real RTS not some mmorpg wannabe this game is disgusting. Im not wasting time imo some should buy the aoe license and make a AOM 2 or AOE IV. If not im still gonna play AOE 2 and 3.
Lame. It's combining the quest grinding part (dog crap) of MMORPG's with the great playness (steak) of RTS. Why would you put dog crap on a steak?
Pay2win? really? is this the first f2p game you people have ever played. 20$ is the max you need to spend to be able to compete with the top players. It's like crying that you can't compete in wow pvp with a trial account. Everytime I come to this site the forums are filled with insane exaggerations on how much you "need" to spend in w.e f2p game to be able to compete....
p2w rip off games of once great franchises aren't working. This game is just a disgrace, captastic graphics, p2w and not a real RTS so why are people surprised it didn't take off?
The writting has been on the wall forever.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
I quite like it tbh. Chat needs an overhaul and a moderator system in place to deal with the spamming.
But all in all I like it.
# SW:TOR : Tylantia, Sivis, Aeonis, Aehris, Xaehrin, Vhyce, Tehren, Suvis
# Ryzom : Kasumi / Secor / Anuihlm
# City of Heroes/Villains : @Tylantia
# Age of Empires Online : Tylantia (Abydos server)
# Stargate Worlds : Kadael
# WoW : Tylantia, Siinaar, Sivis, Moofangles, Aehr, Cehr, Chaizen, Ocep, Tzias
Hate the model and repetiveness of it. Doesn't even try to hide it.
He who keeps his cool best wins.