Paid Skins/customization in AoE

[Tempires]

So it seem MS has entered selling unit skins for AoE3. Coming to AoE2 too?

https://www.ageofempires.com/news/age-iii-de-cosmetics-packs/

3 DLCs: one is free, one costs $0,99 and last one $4,99

BTW: Someone reported having paid skins enabled and in use will result out of sync if other players don't have them

 

[LowEloNobody]

Skins for AoE2 would be a welcome addition IMO.
There is a large chunk of players who never play try-hard ranked games, and play mostly campaigns, vs AI, etc.
I would also love to see more campaign & Co-op campaign DLCs.
Given the modding scene in AoE2, I have a hard time seeing them adding paid skins as an option. If I had to guess, they will stick to DLCs with new campaigns for existing civs, and new civs.

 

[sheeesh]

Introduction of skins in AoE2 would be a nice way to bring revenue in the game BUT I wouldn't risk it given the bugs it would bring-we got enough already. Maybe in an AoE2DE definitive edition.

 

[T-West]

This is disgusting. Predatory microtransactions (and yes, even "only cosmetics" are predatory) drastically hurt the quality of games in exchange for short-term cash grabs. We've already had bs in Aoe2 such as locking the x256 mod behind a time-limited cheat code. This is just the next step. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with taunts or cheats being locked behind not just events but pay walls.

I feel bad for Aoe3. I actually enjoy the game, but it feels like it has just become a testing ground for how far they are able to push anti-consumer business practices. They've already crammed in the United States as a civ, complete with an event where you could unlock them "for free" by tediously completing one in-game "challenge" for each of the 50 states. And this was time-limited where you could do only 3 per day, forcing you to keep launching the game over and over to grind out the tasks.

And I expect more of these too. If you look at their job applications for producers, they list "games as a service" experience as a desired qualification.

Ironically there's a tweet by the "creative director" from a couple years ago dismissing criticism of microtransactions and claiming they were not part of the plan: https://twitter.com/Ishmae1/status/1139240694847926272

 

[plfan]

We can have:
- DLC every 8 months
- Paid skins
Choose one or two from this or:
- Dead game, because no income for MS & FE\

Personally i would like paid voices (like Memb/T90 speaking that you advanced to Imperial Age etc.) more than skins. There is something like this in SC2 (skins as well).

 

[Tendo]

They've already crammed in the United States as a civ, complete with an event where you could unlock them "for free" by tediously completing one in-game "challenge" for each of the 50 states. And this was time-limited where you could do only 3 per day, forcing you to keep launching the game over and over to grind out the tasks.

Might be only me, but I think that was one of the best ideas they ever had.
Noone was "forcing" you to play it, you were free to not unlock them and buy them instead.
Also you basically need to play 17 days to unlock them, not that much if you play anyway.

Ironically there's a tweet by the "creative director" from a couple years ago dismissing criticism of microtransactions and claiming they were not part of the plan

Well they also said aoe2 DE would prolly not get any DLC's so well...

 

[IvIaximus]

It is just scam at this point (has been for a while). You can not advertise your game as "definitive" (and also claim there would be no DLCs) and then just do opposite. It is called fraud.
They can't match developing skills of Ensemble Studios so they stick to facelifting old games and squeezing money out of them by producing unnecessary "content". Any try to "keep the game alive" by selling DLCs is just short term solution that will hurt the game at the end. AoC survived because it was great game. By adding stuff into it you risk crossing the line when game loses its core design, consistency, aesthetics, etc. which might result in game losing its initial appeal.

 

[NextLever]

It is just scam at this point (has been for a while). You can not advertise your game as "definitive" (and also claim there would be no DLCs) and then just do opposite. It is called fraud.
They can't match developing skills of Ensemble Studios so they stick to facelifting old games and squeezing money out of them by producing unnecessary "content". Any try to "keep the game alive" by selling DLCs is just short term solution that will hurt the game at the end. AoC survived because it was great game. By adding stuff into it you risk crossing the line when game loses its core design, consistency, aesthetics, etc. which might result in game losing its initial appeal.

So much wrong with this take, lol. Saying "AoC survived" is not the equivalent of saying AOE2 survived. You do know how and thanks to what the game survived to this day, right?

 

[DracKeN]

I'm happy to pay for a new DLC every 8 months, the civs are lately reasonably well designed and if they turn too OP, there's usually a decent nerf in 2-3 months. I'm fine with MS monetarizing the game this way and if that brings tournament funds, it's great. But personally, I'm annoyed when I finish whatever challenge by mistake and next game I can't recognize my knights.. So if I'd be forced to pay for skins, the 1st thing I'd do would be to turn them off so my units look as usual.

 

[IvIaximus]

So much wrong with this take, lol. Saying "AoC survived" is not the equivalent of saying AOE2 survived. You do know how and thanks to what the game survived to this day, right?

Yea I do. Thanks to players who kept playing in times when there was no support from MS, streams or money tournaments, also thanks to few donors who threw few hundreeds bucks into game out of sheer pleasure and also thanks to god sent volunteers who kept platforms like Voobly, IGZone, Gamepark, Gameranger, etc. alive. But most importantly game survived because it was good game that kept people interested years after it was published.

 

[Potkeny]

But personally, I'm annoyed when I finish whatever challenge by mistake and next game I can't recognize my knights..

Luckily they fixed that for you, now you have to click the "subscribe" button to actually activate the newly unlocked stuff.

Predatory microtransactions (and yes, even "only cosmetics" are predatory) drastically hurt the quality of games in exchange for short-term cash grabs.

Where is the line for you to call it "predatory"?
I personally do that for the "lootbox" variants, especially if its non-visual-only content (the typical hero/class/champion/etc. unlock-the-game type).

If you can buy a skin which changes your kings to T-Rexes and only you can see it, is it actually a bad thing? If you need it, you can buy it for a fixed amount (hopefully decently priced), and if you don't care for it, you have zero reasons to pay any money. Lootboxes obviously are different, you pay money and can only hope to get what you actually want.

Extra (coop) campaigns are another thing I can see being sold as "microtransactions", would those be predatory for you? If someone likes to play them, if decently priced, a steady stream of new content sounds like a nice deal, while everyone else doesn't have to pay for them just to get the new civs/etc. they actually want from a DLC.

 

[Lokalo]

I'm happy to pay for a new DLC every 8 months, the civs are lately reasonably well designed and if they turn too OP, there's usually a decent nerf in 2-3 months. I'm fine with MS monetarizing the game this way and if that brings tournament funds, it's great. But personally, I'm annoyed when I finish whatever challenge by mistake and next game I can't recognize my knights.. So if I'd be forced to pay for skins, the 1st thing I'd do would be to turn them off so my units look as usual.

Well I agree with everything, except that I feel 2-3 months of having obviously too OP 2 civs is bit too long. Not to start with that even after those nerfs probably most still wouldn't agree they are balanced...

 

[LowEloNobody]

This is disgusting. Predatory microtransactions (and yes, even "only cosmetics" are predatory) drastically hurt the quality of games in exchange for short-term cash grabs

This seems like a bit of an extreme take?
There is a large group of single-player AoE players who would happily pay for custom skins etc. How is it predatory by providing that?
They aren't selling randomized loot boxes (effectively gambling for kids) or some weapon or power up that makes you better at the game. This seems like a very low-impact way to provide content and make a bit of money.
I truly don't see a massive difference between paid skins, paid campaigns, and paid DLCs (Civs + Campaigns)
I also think the US civ unlock event was a nice add. If you had zero dollars to your name, you could still unlock DLC content by playing the game. We don't even have that option in AoE2

 

[PlusNomad]

Dunno if it's been said yet but the game needs to be free to play if it's to add skins as a revenue stream. You can't have both, as much as they pretend game sales over time don't exist in terms of wanting funding for continued development, or that they'd get more money from sales if they weren't working on bug simulator since the start.

Look at Valorant. Free to play, cosmetic skins only - ones others can see. Expensive but people do pay it. Im not saying we need to go to those extremes of prices (two bottles of whisky or the skin one gun is a no brainer to buy the whisky for me), but whilst being free to play they ****ing **** on us and a lot of other games in terms of development and support. Seen the new agents they add? New maps? The tournaments? Updates are constant and handled well, their patch notes are thorough and well written with the occasional writeups from some analysis about how the agents are performing in different levels of games. It's a true model example of how a game could be if developed and maintained by competent individuals and they do it all with the game being free to play whilst selling skins. New agents are free to unlock in game by playing, there's good unranked and ranked matchmaking as well as keeping up to date with their special game modes like we had with battle royale etc, that rotate and aren't just forgotten about. The only payments Ive made for Valorant are for the battlepass as I actually feel like given back for the time I've spent in it, and I also think you get a pretty decent deal with the battlepass skins throwing some sheckels at them every few months.

I don't think that introducing microtransactions into Age will ever work the way it does for other successful games. I'll happily eat my words if they happen and, within at least a couple of months of trialing the revenue, the game becomes free to play and the playerbase will explode. You've got to remember 2DE was sold to us with the promise that there would not be any additional costs (additional DLCs) over time, the support the game has had certainly does NOT do the sales revenue justice alone, then they add more DLCs for the cash grab. That I don't blame FE for, it's probably Microsoft trying to milk as much cash as possible and out of the dev's hands, but I'm all for paid skins if the game goes F2P and wants to become more widespread and get into serious esport territory.

Skins other people could see (that trump any mod (possibly even remove non standard cosmetic mods from the mod store)? would be nice. Architecture sets? Brilliant. Unit thematic skins? Nice. Hell even the update thing can work like the season type of pass thats in many other games where they let you unlock certain mods for types of skins for doing certain tasks already.

Small trees will need to become official just like grid did though, some are kind of inexcusable.

 

[amazing_knight]

Personally i would like paid voices (like Memb/T90 speaking that you advanced to Imperial Age etc.) more than skins. There is something like this in SC2 (skins as well).

Instead of the annoying sound that you hear when you get housed, imagine MbL yelling "make a damn house you ****ing *****"

Could definitely pay for that.

 

[sheeesh]

Memb TItanic on lost game stat screen

 

[Shakal]

Dunno if it's been said yet but the game needs to be free to play if it's to add skins as a revenue stream. You can't have both

Why not?

 

[Hunyadi_]

This is disgusting. Predatory microtransactions (and yes, even "only cosmetics" are predatory) drastically hurt the quality of games in exchange for short-term cash grabs. We've already had bs in Aoe2 such as locking the x256 mod behind a time-limited cheat code. This is just the next step. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with taunts or cheats being locked behind not just events but pay walls.

I feel bad for Aoe3. I actually enjoy the game, but it feels like it has just become a testing ground for how far they are able to push anti-consumer business practices. They've already crammed in the United States as a civ, complete with an event where you could unlock them "for free" by tediously completing one in-game "challenge" for each of the 50 states. And this was time-limited where you could do only 3 per day, forcing you to keep launching the game over and over to grind out the tasks.

And I expect more of these too. If you look at their job applications for producers, they list "games as a service" experience as a desired qualification.

Ironically there's a tweet by the "creative director" from a couple years ago dismissing criticism of microtransactions and claiming they were not part of the plan: https://twitter.com/Ishmae1/status/1139240694847926272

LOL bro I think you would literally pass out if I showed you Diablo Immortal's monetization scheme.

DLC skins is what we want because they don't impact gameplay and are 100% optional. Plus they're super cheap at 99 cents.

 

[LmScar12]

Dunno if it's been said yet but the game needs to be free to play if it's to add skins as a revenue stream. You can't have both, as much as they pretend game sales over time don't exist in terms of wanting funding for continued development, or that they'd get more money from sales if they weren't working on bug simulator since the start.

Not sure this is true, Paradox Interactive continues to sell games and expansions/DLCs at high prices, while also adding in dozens of small cosmetic packs (such as skins) on those same games in the $2-10 range. The final prices for complete bundles of EUIV, Stellaris, CK2, etc would make y'all faint who can't handle paying 40 bucks total for AoE2:DE w/ all DLCs.

 

[SlipperySteve]

I'm happy to pay for a new DLC every 8 months, the civs are lately reasonably well designed and if they turn too OP, there's usually a decent nerf in 2-3 months. I'm fine with MS monetarizing the game this way and if that brings tournament funds, it's great. But personally, I'm annoyed when I finish whatever challenge by mistake and next game I can't recognize my knights.. So if I'd be forced to pay for skins, the 1st thing I'd do would be to turn them off so my units look as usual.

I think the issue with this is I don't think it's sustainable to keep adding civs to the game. Even at the current state the amount of civs makes the game pretty inaccessible for new players to learn. Although I don't have a better alternative myself

 

[Black Adder]

Here we begin. As has been posted, they said there won't be microtransactions. They also said there won't be further civs. They also said all kinds of other things.

With AoEIV, it looks like they might be aiming for paid campaigns looking at the free civs (unless that's still only a one-off copium to save the game, or reaction to Stormgate).

They seem to be looking into all kinds of venues how to proceed.

The question now is where is this going to continue (if it is), and where will it stop. If, when and how are they going to potentially start restricting/influencing/meddling with types of modding so they can keep releasing all of this and more without the community limiting/outdoing them (or if they're going to go the Bethesda way, i.e. monetising community content, which would seem more likely to me and making more sense with the vibrant and deep modding community we have (which has kind of already happened with FE, so they have the experience)). They can still release "professional" content people will buy, that's not a problem even with active modding community, question is the hunger for monetisation (which is influenced by presence of community mods, especially as advanced and quality as in AoE will have effect), which is, as seen, progressing.

...as much as they pretend game sales over time don't exist in terms of wanting funding for continued development...

This is something that is very good to point out, people somehow think game release->end of sales, but there is a very healthy natural churn - the population you see, the relatively stable numbers are not because it would be all the same people playing all the time, no, that's maybe just your limited perception from your bubble, there are people leaving and new ones coming all the time as well (just as there is churn between top players and new names coming up to prominence). In reality, the stable numbers exactly mean there is a lot of further game selling going on still, and that is pure profit. You need to consider most players are single players, and plenty of them will play campaigns, maybe some weeks of skirmish, and then leave for the next new game, because they got from this one what they wanted, so that someone new can come in and play the campaigns and repeat the cycle, hence keeping the numbers.

Add to that how massively in plus they are already from all the sales (just do basic math even on rough estimates, and what teams worked on development), and it should be clear any of those "but we (well, mostly "they" from community) need more" justifications are just largely baseless towards actual means to maintaining the game, it's about getting more, nothing else. Unless they're burning money on crazy scale with World's Edge, which, frankly, when you look at the size and the output... But seeing FE, and how much they grew, only on AoE, you get the idea.

Btw the skins are not all new, some are reused from previous events.

 

[HelloWorld]

If they stop adding more DLCs and dumb civs which can do everything one age earlier, the game could have been balanced better.

I would take microtransactions in skins such as a different monk texture than a DLC microtransaction where you press a
button and all your vills become military units.

 

[SouFire]

Here we go again with the the devs need more money cause the game is dying, microsoft and FE have no money to keep running the game, the server maintenance is too expensive, i would happily give them 30 usd every month and 15 usd every week if possible...

What do those guys have in their grey matter?

 

[PlusNomad]

Here we go again with the the devs need more money cause the game is dying, microsoft and FE have no money to keep running the game, the server maintenance is too expensive, i would happily give them 30 usd every month and 15 usd every week if possible...

What do those guys have in their grey matter?

I cant imagine the DE share of server space is that expensive. It's Microsoft's existing Azure servers which they use for practically everything else they do. Just like handling the rec files which are basically just text instructions for what's happened and when, the servers aren't exactly taking a significant hit for bandwidth or system resources. If anything I wouldn't be surprised if FE's implementation is basically just running a low spec VM on each regional server.

 

[TheShaunPlays]

Microsoft needs to keep making money to justify so much support for the game. I think the DLC train will slow down soon and if they continue with it it'll fracture the community too much (DE was a really nice way for everyone to play together on the same game).

Purely cosmetic seems like a logical solution.