DLCAge of Empires III: Definitive Edition (Base Game)Loading store offers
Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition
Command civilizations, take on historical battles, and choose between solo play, online matches, and co-op in Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition. At the current low, it costs $4.86 at 
Eneba. That makes the opportunity timely if you want to try the campaign or set up battles with friends. The described trial has a rotating roster and selected content, so consider whether that scope fits the way you plan to play before buying. At $34.99 from Eneba, the current low offers a chance to lead civilizations through historical real-time strategy alone, online, or in co-op.
EnebaAge of Empires III: Definitive Edition (PC) Steam Key UNITED STATES-86%from~ $4.86ALL-TIME LOWSave $30.13 vs SteamBuy now
K4GAge of Empires III Definitive Edition Steam CD KeyAll-time low ~ $14.99across Steam & third-party storesat the recorded all-time low
Loading store offers
Wishlist price
Set a target to receive an email when an eligible offer in your selected region is at or below that amount.
Price History
Past 36 months · Updated dailyHistorical Low~ $0.002023-08Current Low Across Stores~ $4.86Eneba
Prices cover Steam and 39 authorized stores; only legitimate offers are counted. The chart shows weekly market-wide lows and Steam's official price across the past 36 months.
DLC
DLCAge of Empires III: Definitive Edition - United States CivilizationLoading store offers
DLCAge of Empires III: Definitive Edition - Mexico CivilizationLoading store offers
DLCAge of Empires III: Definitive Edition - The African RoyalsLoading store offers
DLCAge of Empires III: Definitive Edition - Knights of the MediterraneanLoading store offers
DLCAge of Empires III: Definitive Edition SoundtrackLoading store offers
01About Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition
Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition is a real-time strategy game about commanding civilizations and fighting historical battles. The Steam PC description presents single-player and multiplayer play, co-op battles, and a trial with a rotating civilization roster, a campaign preview, and AI skirmishes. Steam players rate it 85%% positive from 37,242 reviews. Interface languages: Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, English, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese-Brazil, Russian, Turkish, and Vietnamese. Released October 15, 2020.
Credits
Developer
World's Edge · Tantalus Media · Forgotten Empires
Publisher
Xbox Game Studios
Lowest recorded in 36 months
$0.002023-08-12 · SteamBase game · same records as the chart above; USD history, not a regional Steam low.Language support
| Language | Interface | Subtitles | Audio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simplified Chinese | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Traditional Chinese | Yes | Yes | — |
| English | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Show 10 more languages
| Language | Interface | Subtitles | Audio |
|---|---|---|---|
| French | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Italian | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| German | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Spanish | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Japanese | Yes | Yes | — |
| Korean | Yes | Yes | — |
| Portuguese-Brazil | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Russian | Yes | Yes | — |
| Turkish | Yes | Yes | — |
| Vietnamese | Yes | Yes | — |
Steam PC edition data · 2026-10-20
02Before you buy
Play modes
The Steam PC listing identifies single-player, multiplayer, and co-op, including online play with friends and AI skirmishes.
Language
German is listed as an interface language, with subtitles; full German audio is not listed.
03Frequently asked questions
What multiplayer options are described?
The description mentions online play with friends and skirmishes against AI on a selection of random maps.
How many civilizations are in the trial roster?
The trial description says its roster rotates among the full game's 16 civilizations.
What does the trial include?
It includes a first look at the Blood Story Mode campaign, the Algiers Historical Battle, a tutorial, and The Art of War challenges.
Popular Steam reviews
Native-language selection · 10 reviewsSelected helpful reviews in this language show both recommendations and criticisms. This selection does not represent the overall positive rating; opinions reflect the version reviewed.
RecommendedSteam player
If you liked Age of Empires III gameplay, you'll like this. Fair warning, you are basically paying for a slightly better looking AoE3 with two new civs. Now mind you, if this was any other game you'd probably be ok paying $15 for two new factions, or rather you wouldn't be ok with it but you would do it anyway. Consider that, and consider that you also get a discount on this if you own Age III. A note on Historical Revisionism: As someone with a BA in History, and who understands the current political climate, I understand and support why you changed the names of the Sioux and Iroquois to their preferred name. That doesn't bother me in the slightest, and it really has only positives for people of those backgrounds and cultures to support their representation. However, I find it problematic that you are attempting to erase the word Colony/Colonial from a game that is about the whole colonial system. You guys felt the need to apologize for creating this game in a climate that generally had no issue with these words, and you changed them to appeal to changing political climates. What you fail to understand, is that at least your campaign does a good job of explaining the brutal and unjust nature of imperialism and colonialism. The whole India campaign is an amazing scorch of British imperialism, as the Warchief section is a scathing and honest representation of US imperialism. By changing terms and pretending this game is something it's not, all you're doing is attempting to conceal history. Terminology matters when discussing history, changing terms makes no sense. In the academic community, we don't alter colonialism from our terminology, rather, we acknowledge it for what it is/was and write or study it. Also, be mindful this game greatly exaggerates all societies and communities, and while some portrayals can be considered unsavory in our 2020 world, just note that the European communities represented are also stereotypes. Why is this important? Because it's a VIDEO GAME!Show moreShow less
0.1 hours at review1,153 people found this helpful
Not recommendedSteam player
Other reviews have covered the mess of bugs, atrocious UI, audio errors, graphical errors and so forth, so I might as well cover another point of contention: the changes made to make things more 'historically accurate'. You know that when you're greeted with a paragraph talking about how they have removed 'problematic' elements (the dev's word, not mine) to make the game more accurate, you're in for a ride. The changes themselves are relatively minor; some are as simple as recasting fifteen year old lines, others are as game-changing as removing the ability of the Iroquois and Sioux (who I will refer to as such) to mine coin and instead forcing them to trade for it through buildings. Some of the changes for the sake of historical accuracy actually *do* make things more accurate - mainly the name changes to some native units. Others are just a blatant grab at brownie points; such as the removal of all instances of the word 'colonial'. Yes, a game focused on the period of history that saw the growth of great colonial empires no longer has the word colonial within it - the Colonial age was renamed to the Commerce Age, Colonial Militia were renamed to Revolutionary Militia. Plantations were renamed to Estates, the Discovery Age was renamed to the Exploration age, and - most puzzling of all - Light Infantry was renamed to *Shock* Infantry. Meanwhile, the Sioux and Iroquois have been renamed to use the terms they referred to themselves as (or, rather, the Iroquois have - the Sioux were just renamed to the Lakota, who are not the only Siouan people to exist). This was done in the name of inclusivity. The old names did not prevent these empires from being added in the first expansion a decade ago, nor did it prevent anyone from getting into the game; I also reject the idea that the new names make the game more historically accurate. Not just because there is nothing inherently inaccurate about an exonym, but because of how selective the application of these changes were. The Japanese, who do not call themselves Japanese, are still Japanese and led by the isolationist Tokugawa in a global empire building game. The Indians and Chinese are still led by the Mughal and Qing dynasties, despite the fact that neither of these dynasties called themselves Indian or Chinese (both those words also being European in origin) or even viewed themselves as being representative of Indian and Chinese nationhood. The Aztecs are still called the Aztecs despite the Mexica being the actual tribe that represented them, if we want to go by the renaming convention for the Sioux. The Ottomans - who were a dynasty - are still called the Ottomans rather than the Turks. I probably shouldn't have to mention that the Germans don't actually call themselves German either. It is not only wildly inconsistent, it is entertainingly inconsistent: in their effort to promote the terms that natives used to refer to themselves, they'd leave the Manchu Qing, who went out of their way to impose Manchu culture on the Han, representing China, or still pretend that India is a uniform civilization best represented under a Turko-Persian Islamic dynasty. In their quest to make things more historically accurate for two native civs, they've left things virtually unchanged for the Europeans (and Asians). Prince Henry the Navigator, who was never a head of state, still represents the Portuguese despite all other leaders being actual rulers. Napoleon, who gave up France's colonial empire to pursue European hegemony, leads the French in a game that doesn't have European maps, and for some reason still flies the *medieval* Capetian coat of arms. The British, despite their name, still have nothing representing the Scots unique to their roster, and the Germans are just Prussians, with the only thing representing something else in the HRE still being Czech War Wagons of all things. Moreover, while the Iroquois and Sioux are restricted to trade posts for gathering coin in the name of historical accuracy, Europeans - despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of European settlers never set foot anywhere near a gold or silver mine - still get most of their coin through mining rather than growing tobacco, making rum or trading furs like they actually did. The implication of this, of course, is that the devs might think the Iroquois and Sioux simply wouldn't know how to mine precious metal deposits if they were presented with them - given that their removal of all terms referring to colonization also implies that the natives were Noble Savages who didn't engage in empire building or colonization of their own and that the Europeans didn't even colonize the New World, I can believe that the devs are actually that based and paternalistic. Of course, the actual reason is more likely that the devs just wanted to virtue signal, and went about it in some of the most thoughtless and wasteful ways imaginable. And I do mean wasteful. They spent time, money and effort in consulting native tribes and recasting fifteen year old voice lines because someone might have found them problematic, rather than doing something actually inclusive like allowing all empires to customize their home city (a feature still restricted to the original eight European empires) or otherwise actually applying more polish to their remaster. I would not call this a remaster either. The graphical updates are nice - when they work - and the Swedes and Inca are a plus, but aside from that and having access to the entirety of your card deck from the start there are no further improvements, and the mechanical changes made to the native empires were to their gameplay detriment. This is not a remaster, this is an expansion pack with a graphics update - and the only saving grace is that it is at least priced like an expansion pack and not a whole game.Show moreShow less
0.1 hours at review1,726 people found this helpful
RecommendedSteam player
If you liked Age of Empires III gameplay, you'll like this. Fair warning, you are basically paying for a slightly better looking AoE3 with two new civs. Now mind you, if this was any other game you'd probably be ok paying $15 for two new factions, or rather you wouldn't be ok with it but you would do it anyway. Consider that, and consider that you also get a discount on this if you own Age III. A note on Historical Revisionism: As someone with a BA in History, and who understands the current political climate, I understand and support why you changed the names of the Sioux and Iroquois to their preferred name. That doesn't bother me in the slightest, and it really has only positives for people of those backgrounds and cultures to support their representation. However, I find it problematic that you are attempting to erase the word Colony/Colonial from a game that is about the whole colonial system. You guys felt the need to apologize for creating this game in a climate that generally had no issue with these words, and you changed them to appeal to changing political climates. What you fail to understand, is that at least your campaign does a good job of explaining the brutal and unjust nature of imperialism and colonialism. The whole India campaign is an amazing scorch of British imperialism, as the Warchief section is a scathing and honest representation of US imperialism. By changing terms and pretending this game is something it's not, all you're doing is attempting to conceal history. Terminology matters when discussing history, changing terms makes no sense. In the academic community, we don't alter colonialism from our terminology, rather, we acknowledge it for what it is/was and write or study it. Also, be mindful this game greatly exaggerates all societies and communities, and while some portrayals can be considered unsavory in our 2020 world, just note that the European communities represented are also stereotypes. Why is this important? Because it's a VIDEO GAME!Show moreShow less
60.6 hours at review779 people found this helpful
Not recommendedSteam player
Where to even begin... The cons and some comparisons to the original: They have sacrificed core mechanics of the game in favour of historical accuracy despite never being a historically accurate game in the first place. The native civs can no longer tame animals, which was one of their coolest features, and the North American natives can no longer mine and are required to construct an additional building to be able to acquire coin. Changing things in the game to be more accurate and considerate towards people who were presented in the game in a way that was ignorant or even disrespectful is fine, great even, such as changing the names of the civs to what they actually call themselves, but changing core mechanics and lazily introducing them is not. This is an absurd and unnecessary change that is an insult to veteran players. A major pet peeve of mine is the change from colonial era to commerce era. Are you trying to tell me that a game, that is built around the theme of colonialism, around the era of colonialism and who's entire gameplay is based around building a colony can't have the colonial era in it because it is too offensive. Was colonisation an awful thing for many people, YES, absolutely, but it happened and its what the game is based around, the game isn't making it out to be some glorious thing. This change of course does nothing to the actual gameplay so I'm not going to give up on the game just because of that but it is extremely idiotic and useless. Home city progression has been almost completely removed. You can still level up your home city, however, it only unlocks the customization options for the visual appearance of your home city and no longer unlocks shipment cards, as you now start with all of them. While this works great for multiplayer as you no longer have to grind of out matches to get the cards you need to stay competitive, it is awful for singleplayer. There is no more sense of progress or goals to work towards and the main replayability of singleplayer is simply gone. This is the change that makes me just not want to play the game, I used to love unlocking and experimenting with different makeshift shipment decks as I worked my way up to the more powerful ones, but that is no more. The UI is a complete and utter joke. The visual design of it looks as though someone made a bunch of text boxes in Microsoft Word and copied and pasted them onto the edges of the screen. The original AoE 3 had a UI design that was full of character and had amazing satisfying sounds to match. The definitive edition UI is completely soulless and had ear-piercing horrendous sounds mixed in with some rehashed sounds from the original version that somehow sound worse. To add on to this, the deck editing menu is nigh unusable, its essentially just a massive blob of the possible shipments you can use with very little sorting options. The original deck editor showed you what building the card type, what era you could get the shipments in and the progression trees all at the same time, allowing for easy location and identification of each card. In the definitive deck editor you can sort by age or by card type thats it, enjoy, and the cards are in a seemingly random order with no visual separation making it a long unsorted messy list of shipments that fit said categories. This only what I've discovered and thought worthy of mentioning in my mere 2 hours of playing the game. I've hear many other people mention how poorly optimized the game is but I have had no issues with performance as of yet, so be cautious in checking if your pc can actually run the game. The pros: The two new civs seem unique and interesting, haven't played with them enough to say for certain but I'm not really picky with how strong or standout they are, just happy to have new content. The graphics are a decent upgrade, nothing ground breaking but they generally look nice. Having achievements is nice, there aren't a lot of them but something is better than nothing at this point. It's cheaper than the original AoE 3, which is nice. yeah, that's about it, it's a ♥♥♥♥ show. The Meh: The sound revamps are overall higher quality and are likely more accurate but they take away a lot of the nostalgia of the original and are also a lot less satisfying (in my opinion). The long list of changes to the native civs are great for recognising and respecting these cultures and for the most part don't really affect gameplay, however they ruin a lot of the games nostalgia (which is admittedly a sacrifice I think we can make) and a lot of it is lazily done, such the community plaza, where villages walk in circles for some reason and it looks ridiculous. The fur trading building used to get coin is gathered by villagers as if they were plucking berries... from the side of a building... built next to a coin mine... which they aren't allowed to gather from... but the fur trade drains coin from the mine? Very historically accurate, thanks devs. It's just looks stupid and is clearly not very thought out, but once again, doesn't affect gameplay so it's not that big of a deal. Things they could change to make this better: Major problems: A big one would be to revert the any and all mechanic gameplay changes (not balance changes). I can understand if they don't want to do this because they have committed to it and don't want to insult the very people they changed it for. Add the option to have level unlocked shipments and restore the progression mechanics in singleplayer Make the deck builder the way it was in the original or add more features to make it less of a nightmare Minor problems: Add the option to use legacy sound effects Allow for more in game UI customization Make the main menu UI less of steaming pile of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Summary I'm pissed off. I've played more hours of AoE 3 than can possibly be counted, accumulated over the span of over a decade and to see it's legacy end with this disappointing mess makes me extremely sad. I've been beyond hyped since the first Definitive Edition was announced as I was hoping that AoE 3 would get one, and I was even more hyped when AoE 3 was confirmed to get one. I am not hard to please when it comes to remakes, I would have been satisfied and given this game a positive review if it was simply a graphics upgrade with nothing else but they went ahead and made changes that no one wanted, removed content and sucked the soul, the character and the passion from the game, all in one fell swoop. Some additions after seeing the comments: People are thinking that I'm railing on the devs for giving in to offended people, I'm not, I'm fine that the changes to the names and appearances of the nations, buildings and other things make the game more inclusive. What I am not ok with is compromising the gameplay for the those reasons. It's likely my fault for giving off that impression as my paragraph on the whole colony renaming ordeal made it out to be a lot more serious than it really is. I don't want to hate the game, I don't want to see it fail, I want to enjoy it. In it's current state, however, I don't see myself playing much of it and I would love to see that changed.Show moreShow less
2.2 hours at review1,304 people found this helpful
RecommendedSteam player
Unpopular opinion: Better than 2Show moreShow less
118.3 hours at review252 people found this helpful
Not recommendedSteam player
Apparently, being culturally sensitive and removing all traces of colonialism was more important than fixing fundamental broken game mechanics. But at least I wasn't offended on behalf of other people.Show moreShow less
4.9 hours at review1,192 people found this helpful
RecommendedSteam player
Steam says play for free, you download it, and play it once. The next time you go to play it, it says free trial and you have to buy it to play again. This is very unethical and misleading. If you say play for free, it should be free. Or make the distinction that you can play it ONCE for free. I deleted the game just for the spite of it. It was a great game, though.Show moreShow less
4.4 hours at review234 people found this helpful
Received for free
Not recommendedSteam player
The AI still doesn't work on water maps. E.g. if you play on Ceylon, the AI stays put on their tiny starting island and stops doing anything because they run out of wood. As another example, if you play on Honshu, you can expand onto the second major island where you'll be safe for the rest of the game because the AI will never follow you there. The devs should've fixed this problem fifteen years ago. I'll update my review if/when the devs fix this problem.Show moreShow less
0.9 hours at review1,084 people found this helpful
RecommendedSteam player
A handy guide to deciding whether this is the game for you, since reviews and several forums are being raided. As you can probably see, a lot of reviews and forum posts are popping up about changes that have been invented by their respective OOPs, are complaining about random changes actually requested by the community, or are filled by flaming from members of a few different groups that decided that this game should be review bombed due to political reasons, or because they think it's a waste of time since they prefer AoE2. So, here is a short summary of actual, concrete pros and cons, as well as a short debunking of the most common made up arguments. Let's have a short FAQ about the misinformation being distributed as a part of the raids at the moment. Q: Did the devs actually increase the amount of black people spawning for European civs? A: No. It's the same as it was 15 years a go. Q: Did the devs change the art style? A: No. The art style is the same, the models are just more detailed. Some people are experiencing weird blurriness that will cause the game to look more foggy and "cartoony" as some people have put it, but there are a few workarounds (or you can refund and wait until they fix it) if that occurs for you. Q: Did the devs remove the ability to name and customize your own home city? A: No. This was an invented flaw, based on the fact that you get stock-home cities instead of having to make a separate one if you want to play a faction. You're able to name your city and explorer, and customize it just as you can in the original release of the game. Q: Did the devs remove the ability to see units through trees, and see how many home shipments you have available? A: No. This has to be the most awkward fallacious argument, since the UI elements and unit rendering through trees are there pretty much just as they were with the original release. Q: I'm seeing some really random reviews complaining about the lack of progression. Why? A: The "no progression" argument was picked up and hijacked by raiders after (valid) complaints were made by the singleplayer skirmish community about the changes to singleplayer progression. Basically what happened was that they made it so you could play any faction in multiplayer without being handicapped for up to hundreds of games, without grinding first. This was one of the most requested changes, since the existence of the home-city card unlocking mechanic was one of the biggest things that pushed people away from multiplayer when the game first launched. Several good arguments have been made to why the old progression system should be implemented into singleplayer, so we'll have to hope the devs will add that in the future. The singleplayer community's arguments are good, and it's sad that their gripes were hijacked and mangled by raiders and review bombers. Q: Is this a heavily politicized release, run over by SJWs? A: There have been some minor changes as well as some clear mistakes from the devs part regarding this topic, but the short answer is no, and this whole topic has been blown out of proportions. The devs basically ordered a short list of things to change from Native American consultants, as well as thought of some changes by themselves. They basically changed a few words in a few text files, and made a few mechanical changes (that were luckily good, as the things that affected game balance were mainly buffs to underpowered things, so the effects of this to multiplayer were mainly positive.) It has to be said, though, there is also a big downside to what they did, in terms of what they didn’t do at the same time. Basically, the changes they made were really lacking, and they didn't follow through with making all of the changes that should have logically been made according to the principles that were used to justify the changes they made. Several really weird things were left unchanged with the natives, and the Asian civs were left in a really janky state in terms of historical representation and accuracy. Several members of the games Chinese and Indian communities have already been vocal about this, so if you're interested in what went wrong with the India and China civs, there are plenty of posts around detailing the flaws there. Regardless of your political stance, the changes don't really affect the game since the changes being referred to in "OMG THE DEVS ARE SJWs" posts are a few changes to text strings, and if they bothered you there's been a mod that reverts them since day one. Q: Is this just a bad game? A: Some people like it, some people don't. If you're seeing pages upon pages of copypasted "AoE2 is the best AoE3 is for ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥" threads somewhere, you've just seen an ongoing raid. It's a cringy sight, I know. Q: Why didn't they increase the unit cap? A: Because, unlike other AoE games, III is heavily balanced around population costs and AoE damage, meaning that it becomes completely unbalanced and unplayable with a higher unit cap. It probably would have been nicer to have a setting to have it higher in custom games, but it's more of a small oversight that could have been nice for a few people, rather than a big flaw or something highly requested that was left out. This release is extremely multiplayer focused, and a higher unit cap setting wasn't a priority for competitive multiplayer play. If that was something you were looking forward to and won’t buy the game because of this, that’s understandable as well. Actual pros and cons: To be fair, let's go through the cons first: - Some people are experiencing severe game breaking bugs, as well as other visual bugs. Be prepared to wait or refund if you're experiencing these. These include bugs that stop you from progressing in the campaign, connecting to people or seeing multiplayer lobbies. - No singleplayer skirmish progression, if you're interested in that. - If you didn't like AoE3 before, you'll most likely not like it now, except if the home city unlocking was your only gripe. - The game runs very poorly on some systems, so you'll have to try your luck with the games graphical performance quirks. - The clan and replay functionalities don't work properly all the time at the moment. - Chinese voicelines and localisation is bad, and in some cases buggy as well. - Several other localizations are buggy too. Neutral: - No public ELO in casual games, so no easy way to filter through casual games based on ELO, but also no ELO sniping either. Some people are really pissed about this, but it also fixed a few large problems with the original release. If this is an issue for you, you'll need to wait and see if the devs implement something to let high-ELO people avoid low-ELO casual games and vice versa. - As stated earlier, some names have been changed here and there. If this bothers you, there is a mod that will revert the name changes back. Pros: - Tons and tons of new content, for both European and Native civs. Also, the Chinese can now use more than one army type. This includes new politicians, a few new mechanics, and an expanded new revolution system. - Dedication to competitive multiplayer, in terms of both gameplay improvements as well as balance changes. One of the new civs is seen as a bit overpowered still and there are a few kinks left here and there, but if the devs development cycle is anything near to AoE2:DE (which everything seems to be pointing to), the game will be patched regularly. If you'd rather wait and see, that's completely understandable too. - If you're not one of the unlucky people that have game breaking bugs, the server infrastructure is actually really solid. Cross-continent play is (when not bugging) surprisingly lag free. For example, Europeans can play on the Korean server without practically any gamebreaking lag, which is really nice. - Fluid, competent and modern UI.Show moreShow less
23.5 hours at review224 people found this helpful
Not recommendedSteam player
The gameplay is great but the issues with the game are so bad it makes me doubt I will even buy the next one in the series. I also wish i knew the issues before i played the game now knowing the risks. Issues in the game: Memory leaks. Wiping people's c drives and not telling the community its an issue and only sticking a bug report on their website meaning unless you are looking for it then you don't know. In my mind, i can see why they did it but it's super shady and makes me have 0 trust in the game. CPU usage can go to max no matter what machine I played it on I always saw this occur. The game itself for what it is, in general, is fairly demanding. Tried using my work pc where i have to run multiple emulators for perf tests and even that pc had issues with frame drops every so often on max settings and ran into an occasion where all 32 gigs were used on the game. Balancing in-game is a slight problem but for a release it's okay. Ranked matchmaking seems very buggy right now. Campaign missions will have buggy cutscenes or events in the script that will cause the game to crash. Campaign AI in general will bug out and send all its units to the corner of the map or not attack when needed even if the script spawned the units for it. AI seems to have 0 improvements which is a real shame meaning the game is not really a challenge. Units get stuck on terrain. Trees that don't disappear. Pathing is an issue in certain scenarios. Attack move doesn't work properly. TC sometimes disappears. Blank UI when loading into certain multiplayer games. Multiplayer lobbies can be broken, an example is if people change their colors and you pick the free one it might still say it's taken. Villagers bug out a lot for example they stop building houses after one is complete and one more is being constructed next to it. Animals are buggy and sometimes get guided to the TC instead of being killed. Progression instead of being replaced with something has just been removed and the progression system is still there with minimal rewards. Censoring chat with no way of toggling it on or off. The issue with this is the censor will censor entire sentences that are not needing to be censored for example if you type "I am a noob" or "onager". Overall: The game should be classed as early access or delayed since I think it did more damage than good to the age community since i know a fair few people that play the age series that aren't going to buy age 4 for a few months based on this release even if they know its a different team working on it. Also as an entry game into the genre, i think this one had great potential but with the issues, i think it won't hit that potential anytime soon or at all. I might try it in a few months but to be honest I don't trust them with my computer and the solutions that people suggest to safeguard against the issues are not real solutions for example "install Linux" no casual player wants to get home from work or school and boot up either a secondary OS just for this game or a VM. I also work in the software development industry and can say this is below standard by a mile. QA failed to cover basic use cases, software developers failed in producing optimal code or didn't have enough time to profile the game to check for performance issues and refactor. Management failed to see the potential and didn't try their own product before release and possibly didn't listen to their team to extend the deadline being afraid to make the decision to talk to their publisher.Show moreShow less
36.4 hours at review749 people found this helpful
Source: original Steam user reviews. Helpful votes are an archived snapshot, not live data. Last collected: 08/15/2026.