Has Frost Giant solved the RTS monetization problem with Stormgate? (aoe2 monetization)

[akku]

I'm from when having the best cosmetics also meant you were among the most meritable, powerful, outstanding person within that game, not among the ones with fattest wallets. I guess I'll never get used to how people view skins nowadays.

It could be a mix of both.
In Dota 2, and you could buy skins either by paying a lot, or paying minimum and playing good.

I understand some people might be upset by the monetary aspects, but if we want high price pools for aoe2 and better competition (as a result), this could be an effective means.
Of course external sponsorships can also be a way, but even T90 was finding it hard to get sponsorships, inspite of super high viewership (like 30-40K on average?).

There should be some ROI for Microsoft for funding aoe2 tournaments. It can't just be selling copies and DLCs, that can only get you so far.

IMO, the best way to grow the game and scene, would be to cut down the cost of the game, and monetize the skins.
Of course, the units themselves having different skins could be a cause of concern, and might negatively affect player/viewer experience.
But having some amazing skins on castles, universities etc? Would be amazing, as well as historically accurate. There are many glorious castles in history for example, let's have then as paid skins! IT would increase the immersion, hence a plus to the game.

 

[plfan]

Starcraft 2 sold coop campaigns and voice-packs, so maybe that can be done but the question remains as to whether we really need a game that's always under construction and always has content to buy.

Voice packs! Imagine having Memb saying "He's on the way to IMPERIAL AGE" when you click imp 11

 

[Instinctz]

see the skin of your buildings (or units). This is part of the appeal

This is the one thing I absolutely disagree with.

This impacts the readability of the game and could easily negatively impact player experience.

It also means everyone has to download every skin whether or not they use them.

 

[akku]

This is the one thing I absolutely disagree with.

This impacts the readability of the game and could easily negatively impact player experience.

It also means everyone has to download every skin whether or not they use them.

And, people will get used to it.
It's not like you could see something in 4x4 tile that shoots arrow, and think it's not a castle. For example. I already agreed with your sentiments, if it's about regular combat units. My idea is only limited to buildings.

I'm not sure if everyone will have to download them, but probably yeah. But only those who paid will be able to use them.
It'll be similar to how skins work in Dota 2

 

[ponciliano]

It could be a mix of both.
In Dota 2, and you could buy skins either by paying a lot, or paying minimum and playing good.

This might be even worse than store-only cosmetics, because it generates two scenarios:

1- Whales might be mistaken as top-skilled players.

2- Top-skilled players might be mistaken as whales.

So, in the end, instead of valuing players' achievements, such system does exactly the opposite.

I understand some people might be upset by the monetary aspects, but if we want high price pools for aoe2 and better competition (as a result), this could be an effective means.
Of course external sponsorships can also be a way, but even T90 was finding it hard to get sponsorships, inspite of super high viewership (like 30-40K on average?).

Yeah of course, what I'm saying isn't absolute. Just gotta ponder the pros and cons to see if it's worth it.

There should be some ROI for Microsoft for funding aoe2 tournaments. It can't just be selling copies and DLCs, that can only get you so far.

That's quite a lot of money already.

It's investors, who want to earn only record profits, that convinced the community that microtransactions are unevitable. Though the gaming market survived decades without needing any of that.