Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

StarCraft returns in 2030 as an open-world shooter

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: StarCraft returns in 2030 as an open-world shooter

#61

Post by Gud »

jm4 wrote: post #36
Setheck wrote: post #32

They just abandon the entire RTS fan base. This feels just like the diablo immortal announcement disaster where they announce a product that is completely outside the target audience. I hope it's good, but it's really disappointing to not just have starcraft 3. Instead we get diablo 5? I wish I could feel positive about any of the blizzcon announcements, but it all feels like an out of touch joke.

RTS is pretty much a dead genre these days. There have been indie releases but nothing did well enough for a big studio to take notice. They tested the water with a Command and Conquer remaster a few years ago too.

According to?

I play AoE2 and it’s still growing.

Re: StarCraft returns in 2030 as an open-world shooter

#62

Post by spwa4 »

jm4 wrote: post #36
Setheck wrote: post #32

They just abandon the entire RTS fan base. This feels just like the diablo immortal announcement disaster where they announce a product that is completely outside the target audience. I hope it's good, but it's really disappointing to not just have starcraft 3. Instead we get diablo 5? I wish I could feel positive about any of the blizzcon announcements, but it all feels like an out of touch joke.

RTS is pretty much a dead genre these days. There have been indie releases but nothing did well enough for a big studio to take notice. They tested the water with a Command and Conquer remaster a few years ago too.

Have you tried playing the Command and Conquer remaster? They barely upgraded the UI and it just doesn't feel like you're in command. Games move like your wading through molasses and you just win basically everything (except the online mode, where you have no chance whatsoever)

And there isn't much variation.

The cutscenes were almost the best part of the original game. Now they're really the only reason to even look.

Re: StarCraft returns in 2030 as an open-world shooter

#63

Post by TiredOfLife »

Setheck wrote: post #32

They just abandon the entire RTS fan base. This feels just like the diablo immortal announcement disaster where they announce a product that is completely outside the target audience. I hope it's good, but it's really disappointing to not just have starcraft 3. Instead we get diablo 5? I wish I could feel positive about any of the blizzcon announcements, but it all feels like an out of touch joke.

They literally released a 30 hour Warcraft campaign yesterday.

Re: StarCraft returns in 2030 as an open-world shooter

#65

Post by biglyburrito »

card_zero wrote: post #58
Ralfp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Taunted = vaunted?

Maybe they meant "touted" instead of "taunted".

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tout

Re: StarCraft returns in 2030 as an open-world shooter

#66

Post by PorciiVorbesc »

Razengan wrote: post #59
PorciiVorbesc wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Guy you're out of touch There's quite a few new RTS games coming out

>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.

Re: StarCraft returns in 2030 as an open-world shooter

#67

Post by PorciiVorbesc »

gamblor956 wrote: post #41
PorciiVorbesc wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

>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.

Re: StarCraft returns in 2030 as an open-world shooter

#68

Post by PorciiVorbesc »

promano wrote: post #44
PorciiVorbesc wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

>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?

Re: StarCraft returns in 2030 as an open-world shooter

#69

Post by gamblor956 »

PorciiVorbesc wrote: post #67
gamblor956 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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 becaus…

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.

Re: StarCraft returns in 2030 as an open-world shooter

#70

Post by PorciiVorbesc »

gamblor956 wrote: post #69
PorciiVorbesc wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 becaus…

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…

>Meanwhile, Fortnite, Destiny, Marathon, and Apex Legend revenues have all been trending downhill for several years.

Other games having done bad is not proof that your unique RTS will do good. That's my argument.

> If the goal is to lose money, make a live-action shooter.

When your examples that lost money got the green light to start development, the shooter market was very different which is why they got all that money to begin with. But then you take 5-7 years to ship, and by that time the market has changed, so they lost the gamble but that doesn't mean that at the time it was a bad business decision.

Meanwhile new RTS is known for the start it won't make any money since the young players are captured by MOBAs and boomers still play the OGs. That's also my argument.

>Objectively speaking, if the goal is to make a profit, RTSs are a lower risk than shooters.

Feel free to put your money where your mouth is. THere's some indie RTS games out there who probably need some money.

Post reply on HN