6 ms·

Even a half hearted RTS would be better recived, how can they not know that?

by ZiiS 4d ago

bob1029 4d ago
StarCraft 2 is really hard to beat. This is probably the safest thing they could do with the genre from a business perspective.
jayd16 4d ago
Financially incorrect, it seems.
PorciiVorbesc 4d ago
Couldn't be more wrong. The market for new RTSs is too tiny and saturated to turn a profit on any new IP. The small existing player base is too entrenched to move away from the old established IPs that are still popular to something new and unproven.
- promano 4d ago
  Starcraft III would be as far from a new IP as you could go while still making an RTS. Except for a Warcraft IV, I guess.
  - PorciiVorbesc 4d ago
    >Starcraft III would be as far from a new IP as you could go while still making an RTS What are existing players missing from Starcraft 2 to justify buying Starcraft 3 so that Blizzard can justify the money to develop it?
- detritus 4d ago
  Go on?
  - PorciiVorbesc 4d ago
    Gon on, as in you mean like to explain the obvious? Just google/chatgpt sales of RTS games vs shooters and other shit. Good luck convincing an exec to give you 200 million $ to make a new RTS for the 50 player based market out there who's playing the oldies anyway: AOE, RA, SC, etc. It's a small and saturated market that's long been fished out and no point investing into, other than HD remakes/remasters of previously mentioned established IP.
    - mcmcmc 4d ago
      MOBAs largely absorbed the younger player base that would have been into traditional RTS games. The whole genre came out of a Warcraft mod.
  - Ralfp 4d ago
    Tempest Rising was taunted as the old school C&C RTS comeback and it ended as niche game with small player base and 9.5k player peak on Steam. Probably best RTS game going on currently is Beyond All Reason, and that's because guys are doing it as an open source clone/followup to Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander Alliances and not actual business (but they started to look for a way to monetize it to fund future development).
    - card_zero 4d ago
      Taunted = vaunted?
      - biglyburrito 4d ago
        Maybe they meant "touted" instead of "taunted". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tout https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tout
- gamblor956 4d ago
  Tempest Rising made more in profits than Marathon, despite selling a fraction as many copies. Given that Marathon is unlikely to ever make a profit, Tempest Rising technically made infinitely more in profits than Marathon did.
  - PorciiVorbesc 4d ago
    >Tempest Rising made more in profits than Marathon Choosing the biggest flop as your benchmark is a very poor argument. If you lose half as much money as Marathon, you're technically twice as good, but it's still a flop and investors and publishers want successes, not half flops. Marathon existing does not justify the investments into new RTS games. Quite the contrary. Marathon got hundreds of millions in cash because the shooter genre was making billions (at the time) so for them it was worth the gamble even if they lost. But the RTS genre is not making nearly enough money to justify Marathon levels of gambling on new IPs.
    - gamblor956 4d ago
      Quite the contrary. Marathon got hundreds of millions in cash because the shooter genre was making billions (at the time) so for them it was worth the gamble even if they lost. Two shooters were making billions at the time Marathon began pre-production (Fortnite and Destiny). Only two other live-service AAA shooters have made back their budgets (Apex Legends and The Division). Most live-action shooters generated huge losses; even Destiny wasn't doing great anymore by the time Sony acquired Bungie. Sony itself had a horrendous track record with live-service games (of any genre). Other than Final Fantasy Online they have no profitable live-service games developed internally (Destiny and Helldivers are both acquisitions). But the RTS genre is not making nearly enough money to justify Marathon levels of gambling on new IPs. We agree on the first half of that statement, but (a) RTS games don't need Marathon levels of gambling to be successful and (b) live-service shooters also aren't worth the gamble of Marathon levels of spending. Tempest Rising cost less than $10 million to develop, which is less than 1/25th of what Marathon cost. Starcraft 2, the most expensive RTS of all time, cost about $150 million (in today's dollars) and made that back in its first month and made at least $240 million in revenue before going free-to-play. COH3 cost somewhere between $25m and $50m, and earned approximately $50m in sales but also received significant tax incentives in Canada, for a modest profit. On the AA front, Iron Harvest cost approximately $5 million and grossed $15m ($10m going to the studio), for a 100% profit. Similarly, Zerospace has grossed over $5 million on a $2.5m budget. Meanwhile, Fortnite, Destiny, Marathon, and Apex Legend revenues have all been trending downhill for several years. All of the studios behind these games have had sizable layoffs. Sony has lost more on Marathon alone than every AA and AAA RTS game's development budget in the last decade. To put it bluntly: the era of the live-service shooter is almost as dead as the RTS era. Fortnite is the only thing keeping the genre alive. Objectively speaking, if the goal is to make a profit, RTSs are a lower risk than shooters. If the goal is to lose money, make a live-action shooter.
- Razengan 4d ago
  Guy you're out of touch There's quite a few new RTS games coming out
  - PorciiVorbesc 4d ago
    >There's quite a few new RTS games coming out And how many copies are they gonna sell? How big is their player base? All important things bean counters want to know before they pony up north of seven figures of investor money into another RTS and not into another looter shooter instead with a 100x revenue and 100x player base.
mikenew 4d ago
There is no one left at Blizzard with any RTS experience. They've long since left for smaller studios. SC2 is my favorite game of all time and I would love nothing more than an SC3. But if there ever is to be a real spiritual successor it won't be from Blizzard.
- tempestn 4d ago
  Problem is I don't want a spiritual successor. I want an actual successor that would build on the Starcraft universe, but in an RTS.
  - sdfginonoi 4d ago
    [dead]
  - greazy 4d ago
    If you're a fan of single player checkout the mod scene. It's very good. UED First Light is excellent.
gamblor956 4d ago
An RTS game would generate lower revenue but higher profits. Low risk but low reward. A shooter is a high risk high-reward endeavor. The track record for shooters for the past 5 years is actually much worse than it has been for RTS games, but the ceiling for success is much higher. In 2026 alone, several AAA shooters have failed in the market. Most of the shooters released in the past 2 years have failed to survive. The few that succeeded made a lot of money.

Even a half hearted RTS would be better recived, how can they not know that?

by ZiiS 4d ago

Even a half hearted RTS would be better recived, how can they not know that?

StarCraft 2 is really hard to beat. This is probably the safest thing they could do with the genre from a business perspective.

jayd16 4d ago

Financially incorrect, it seems.

PorciiVorbesc 4d ago

Couldn't be more wrong. The market for new RTSs is too tiny and saturated to turn a profit on any new IP. The small existing player base is too entrenched to move away from the old established IPs that are still popular to something new and unproven.

promano 4d ago
Starcraft III would be as far from a new IP as you could go while still making an RTS. Except for a Warcraft IV, I guess.
- PorciiVorbesc 4d ago
  >Starcraft III would be as far from a new IP as you could go while still making an RTS What are existing players missing from Starcraft 2 to justify buying Starcraft 3 so that Blizzard can justify the money to develop it?
detritus 4d ago
Go on?
- PorciiVorbesc 4d ago
  Gon on, as in you mean like to explain the obvious? Just google/chatgpt sales of RTS games vs shooters and other shit. Good luck convincing an exec to give you 200 million $ to make a new RTS for the 50 player based market out there who's playing the oldies anyway: AOE, RA, SC, etc. It's a small and saturated market that's long been fished out and no point investing into, other than HD remakes/remasters of previously mentioned established IP.
  - mcmcmc 4d ago
    MOBAs largely absorbed the younger player base that would have been into traditional RTS games. The whole genre came out of a Warcraft mod.
- Ralfp 4d ago
  Tempest Rising was taunted as the old school C&C RTS comeback and it ended as niche game with small player base and 9.5k player peak on Steam. Probably best RTS game going on currently is Beyond All Reason, and that's because guys are doing it as an open source clone/followup to Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander Alliances and not actual business (but they started to look for a way to monetize it to fund future development).
  - card_zero 4d ago
    Taunted = vaunted?
    - biglyburrito 4d ago
      Maybe they meant "touted" instead of "taunted". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tout https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tout
gamblor956 4d ago
Tempest Rising made more in profits than Marathon, despite selling a fraction as many copies. Given that Marathon is unlikely to ever make a profit, Tempest Rising technically made infinitely more in profits than Marathon did.
- PorciiVorbesc 4d ago
  >Tempest Rising made more in profits than Marathon Choosing the biggest flop as your benchmark is a very poor argument. If you lose half as much money as Marathon, you're technically twice as good, but it's still a flop and investors and publishers want successes, not half flops. Marathon existing does not justify the investments into new RTS games. Quite the contrary. Marathon got hundreds of millions in cash because the shooter genre was making billions (at the time) so for them it was worth the gamble even if they lost. But the RTS genre is not making nearly enough money to justify Marathon levels of gambling on new IPs.
  - gamblor956 4d ago
    Quite the contrary. Marathon got hundreds of millions in cash because the shooter genre was making billions (at the time) so for them it was worth the gamble even if they lost. Two shooters were making billions at the time Marathon began pre-production (Fortnite and Destiny). Only two other live-service AAA shooters have made back their budgets (Apex Legends and The Division). Most live-action shooters generated huge losses; even Destiny wasn't doing great anymore by the time Sony acquired Bungie. Sony itself had a horrendous track record with live-service games (of any genre). Other than Final Fantasy Online they have no profitable live-service games developed internally (Destiny and Helldivers are both acquisitions). But the RTS genre is not making nearly enough money to justify Marathon levels of gambling on new IPs. We agree on the first half of that statement, but (a) RTS games don't need Marathon levels of gambling to be successful and (b) live-service shooters also aren't worth the gamble of Marathon levels of spending. Tempest Rising cost less than $10 million to develop, which is less than 1/25th of what Marathon cost. Starcraft 2, the most expensive RTS of all time, cost about $150 million (in today's dollars) and made that back in its first month and made at least $240 million in revenue before going free-to-play. COH3 cost somewhere between $25m and $50m, and earned approximately $50m in sales but also received significant tax incentives in Canada, for a modest profit. On the AA front, Iron Harvest cost approximately $5 million and grossed $15m ($10m going to the studio), for a 100% profit. Similarly, Zerospace has grossed over $5 million on a $2.5m budget. Meanwhile, Fortnite, Destiny, Marathon, and Apex Legend revenues have all been trending downhill for several years. All of the studios behind these games have had sizable layoffs. Sony has lost more on Marathon alone than every AA and AAA RTS game's development budget in the last decade. To put it bluntly: the era of the live-service shooter is almost as dead as the RTS era. Fortnite is the only thing keeping the genre alive. Objectively speaking, if the goal is to make a profit, RTSs are a lower risk than shooters. If the goal is to lose money, make a live-action shooter.
Razengan 4d ago
Guy you're out of touch There's quite a few new RTS games coming out
- PorciiVorbesc 4d ago
  >There's quite a few new RTS games coming out And how many copies are they gonna sell? How big is their player base? All important things bean counters want to know before they pony up north of seven figures of investor money into another RTS and not into another looter shooter instead with a 100x revenue and 100x player base.

mikenew 4d ago

There is no one left at Blizzard with any RTS experience. They've long since left for smaller studios. SC2 is my favorite game of all time and I would love nothing more than an SC3. But if there ever is to be a real spiritual successor it won't be from Blizzard.

tempestn 4d ago
Problem is I don't want a spiritual successor. I want an actual successor that would build on the Starcraft universe, but in an RTS.
- sdfginonoi 4d ago
  [dead]
- greazy 4d ago
  If you're a fan of single player checkout the mod scene. It's very good. UED First Light is excellent.

gamblor956 4d ago

An RTS game would generate lower revenue but higher profits. Low risk but low reward. A shooter is a high risk high-reward endeavor. The track record for shooters for the past 5 years is actually much worse than it has been for RTS games, but the ceiling for success is much higher. In 2026 alone, several AAA shooters have failed in the market. Most of the shooters released in the past 2 years have failed to survive. The few that succeeded made a lot of money.