Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
2 
Report this post
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1466860/discussions/0/4699035966526041421/
In this post, I mentioned that for Age of Empires IV to achieve better long-term success, it needs to focus on gameplay and fun rather than repeatedly prioritizing esports and ranked play. Based on the game's current update direction, it seems I was probably right.
This suggests that Age of Empires IV has a bright and promising future.
Personally, I believe that both PvE and PvP are essential to RTS games, but esports is not necessary. PvP does not equate to esports.
The Difference Between PvP and Esports
PvP (Player versus Player) refers to any form of player-to-player competition within a game, allowing players to engage in battles without needing to follow strict rules or professional-level competition. Esports, on the other hand, is a highly organized competitive system that involves professional players, leagues, prize pools, strategy research, and balance adjustments. It requires significant investment from organizations or developers to run tournaments and events.
How Esports Limits Game Freedom and Diversity
Esports usually demands extreme balance to ensure fairness and excitement in competitions. However, this focus on balance can lead to the weakening or removal of certain unique game mechanics. For example, Age of Empires IV has repeatedly adjusted strong mechanics, such as the Mongol flexibility or early archery rushes, not because they were universally problematic, but because they were overpowered in competitive play.
To focus on esports, many RTS games reduce the development of PvE content, story modes, or casual modes, sacrificing the experience for regular players. This approach makes the game more one-dimensional and less appealing to a broader audience.
Esports' Audience is Much Smaller Than PvP and PvE Players
Esports players are a small minority within the RTS community. The majority of players are drawn to PvE (single-player campaigns, co-op modes) and PvP (casual matches) modes. Over-prioritizing esports can negatively impact the experience of these other players. For example, StarCraft II saw a loss of regular players as it became more esports-focused, whereas Age of Empires II continued to thrive by consistently updating its PvE and casual PvP content.
Why RTS Needs PvE and PvP, But Not Esports
PvE is the Foundation of RTS
Many RTS players enjoy campaigns, co-op modes, and challenges, which are key to attracting new and casual players. For example, the success of Age of Empires II is largely due to its rich campaign content. In contrast, Age of Empires IV has limited PvE content, which reduces its overall appeal.
PvP Keeps the Game Active
PvP enables players to continuously improve and compete against others, which helps keep the game alive over time. However, PvP doesn’t need to be esports-oriented. Casual PvP allows players to choose their modes freely, while esports introduces strict rules and intense competition that can detract from the enjoyment of most players.
Esports Makes RTS Too Narrow
Focusing too much on esports can make a game more hardcore, which alienates new players and leads to a loss of long-term players. This creates a vicious cycle that can turn the game into a niche product for only a small group of competitive players. On the other hand, Age of Empires II has managed to maintain a large player base by continuing to update PvE and PvP content without forcing an esports focus.
Conclusion
RTS games should balance PvE and PvP content without overemphasizing esports. While esports can boost competition’s excitement, it has limited appeal for regular players. Focusing on the diversity of PvE and PvP modes is the key to the long-term health and success of RTS games.
TBH I agree with you. My fav RTS were those with deep, rewarding single player components like Empire At War and Dark Crusade. I loved those massive 'meta' campaigns.
empire at war , i want a new star war rts game , i think it will be interesting , ive only played the Star Wars game on the Age of Empires 2 engine and haven't played Empire at War, but I'm looking forward to a new Star Wars-themed RTS.
Doubtful it will happen. Disney is only chasing 'quick bucks' from 'AAA' devs. Whereas old LucasArts would give the IP to large, small and medium sized studios across a range of genres Disney only chases corporate trends. We might quicker see a Star Wars battle royale than an RTS.
AoE2 belong to the 'big' esports scene
StarCraft 2 and Age of Empires 2 are only RTS in esport
CoH is not part of "esport scene" (no proffesional tournaments with money prices), but it has large "hardcore multiplayer" community
you know , i hope that AOE2 engines star war will have a new remake version .I hope it can belong to Microsoft since the engine is theirs, even though the game rights are not.
yes , thats very strange ... hand cannon with Jean of Arc
Homeworld 3 crashed hard and had to be abandoned because it wouldnt be feasable to further support.
CoH3 is also a constant anger and didnt perform as well as they hoped, the last Dawn of War was as horrible for them (because they run the RTT wave instead of focussing on creating RTS iterations and they just dont get it).
They now focus on getting new stuff out and while doing this their best strategy would be to keep AoE4 performing.
AoE4 is their only actual success game in the past decade with a positive reception from the get go.
Speculation from my side is, their next game will also tank heavily and underperform, but as mentioned, as long as they keep an active team producing content for AoE4, thats not a big deal.
Age of Empires is an incredibly stable brand because of AoE2DE.
These studios can keep pumping out DLCs and people want it and for many reasons.
Relic only needs to maintain a certain quality and they can basically expand the game for years to fund their ongoing efforts.
Thinking they abandon AoE4 is the most stupid take i have ever heard of.
Abandoning AoE4 would probably be the studios end with a slow death.
It’s not like that. Apart from the fact that the engine is developed by Relic itself, if we look at it purely from the perspective of Age of Empires IV, placing Relic under Microsoft means it’s essentially a second-rate studio. Relic didn’t lead the development of AoE4; they had little say in it. After all, the development of AoE4 was a collaboration between Relic and Microsoft, but the IP rights belong to Microsoft. Since Relic was kicked out of Sega, it no longer owns the rights to the “Company of Heroes” or “Dawn of War” franchises. Now, it’s in a difficult situation with nowhere to go. The only game it fully leads the development and operation of is COH3. If AoE4 were fully handed over to Relic to lead on its own, the result would likely be not only slow updates but also it becoming another “DOW3” or “COH3.”
If Age of Empires IV really made enough money for Relic and its operation benefited Sega, a profit-driven company like Sega would never have kicked them out. The fact is, it didn’t bring in enough profit. Of course, I don’t feel sorry for Relic for ending up in this situation. This foolish company got exactly what it deserved because of its own arrogance and self-righteousness. I believe it’s what they earned, and they totally deserve it.
AOE4 just does not feel like Age of Empires to me. It can be fun, but it's more like those various AOE competitors that where released like 20 years ago.
Indeed, from the development mindset, especially with Company of Heroes 3, the fact that the population cap is even locked at 100 shows how narrow Relic’s approach is. They refuse to learn and improve, and instead of focusing on enhancing the fun and game mechanics, they’ve pushed further down the "esports" path. The result is clear: the death of DOW3, the constant terrible game balance and endless changes after AoE4’s launch, the poor performance of COH3 at launch, and a disastrously bad operation balance, to the point where it has become an industry joke: "Relic’s balance is a joke." Since they ruined DOW3, the player base has had serious grievances with them, and up until today, we must say, thank goodness for Age of Empires IV and Microsoft’s oversight, otherwise we might never have seen the Byzantines and Japanese DLC factions.