I still think unit movement doesn't feel as good as in SC2, and that is so fundamental to a good RTS.
Everything feels floaty or like they are gliding to me. I think adding more impactful footstep sounds could go a long way but I worry it may go deeper than that.
On September 10 2025 04:18 Gorsameth wrote: The idea that the RTS market is saturated is just bullshit and Stormgate even proves that by showing the hype that exists for a game to be the next big RTS.
Hype existed for Stormgate because SC2 community (at least a big part of it) thought it would be an SC2 spiritual successor. They expected the game to match the quality, content and features SC2 developed over 5-7 years of development + 10 years of post-launch support with the resources of one of the biggest game studios out there. When those expectations weren't met, then it became a shitshow and then FG was blamed as to why they were hyping their game so much.
That kind of "hype" is a poisoned chalice. There might be room for other types of RTSes or smaller scope RTSes but I don't think there is a room for an SC2-like RTS to be a big success (ie. "the next big RTS") and that's what FG were aiming for. If someone said there was no room for an RTS to sell a few hundred thousands of copies and be a financial success for a smaller studio with a smaller budget, then they would obviously be incorrect.
But it's all going back to the point of them trying to do too much at the start. Even if the game would be touted as a spiritual successor to SC2 then considering the studio size and funding available they should start smaller and grow over time. Like it is mentioned in the video I posted above from Bearlike (one of the 2 devs behind Mechabellum, which right now is running it's 5th season, has competitive scene including automated 1v1 and 2v2 tournaments as well as cash prize tournaments and cosmetic mtx) - you get one chance at this and you better not screw it up. But once you had a successful launch even on a smaller project you can then grow it since at least you have some stable user base and now know your available funds and can adjust the scope accordingly. Baby steps.
Edit: Also, I think people would appreciate it a bit more if they were at least honest and came out and said that they fucked up and need to cut their losses. They tried, they failed (no shame in that). But the constant gaslighting is just obnoxious.
I don't think anyone (including Tim Morten) is disputing that they bit off more than they could chew.
On September 10 2025 04:18 Gorsameth wrote: The idea that the RTS market is saturated is just bullshit and Stormgate even proves that by showing the hype that exists for a game to be the next big RTS.
Hype existed for Stormgate because SC2 community (at least a big part of it) thought it would be an SC2 spiritual successor. They expected the game to match the quality, content and features SC2 developed over 5-7 years of development + 10 years of post-launch support with the resources of one of the biggest game studios out there. When those expectations weren't met, then it became a shitshow and then FG was blamed as to why they were hyping their game so much.
That kind of "hype" is a poisoned chalice. There might be room for other types of RTSes or smaller scope RTSes but I don't think there is a room for an SC2-like RTS to be a big success (ie. "the next big RTS") and that's what FG were aiming for. If someone said there was no room for an RTS to sell a few hundred thousands of copies and be a financial success for a smaller studio with a smaller budget, then they would obviously be incorrect.
But it's all going back to the point of them trying to do too much at the start. Even if the game would be touted as a spiritual successor to SC2 then considering the studio size and funding available they should start smaller and grow over time. Like it is mentioned in the video I posted above from Bearlike (one of the 2 devs behind Mechabellum, which right now is running it's 5th season, has competitive scene including automated 1v1 and 2v2 tournaments as well as cash prize tournaments and cosmetic mtx) - you get one chance at this and you better not screw it up. But once you had a successful launch even on a smaller project you can then grow it since at least you have some stable user base and now know your available funds and can adjust the scope accordingly. Baby steps.
Edit: Also, I think people would appreciate it a bit more if they were at least honest and came out and said that they fucked up and need to cut their losses. They tried, they failed (no shame in that). But the constant gaslighting is just obnoxious.
I don't think anyone (including Tim Morten) is disputing that they bit off more than they could chew.
In his own words:
Stormgate intended to build upon knowledge gained from StarCraft II. The historical numbers were clear: campaign players are the biggest audience, competitive players are the most persistent and vocal audience. Co-op appeals to a cross-section of both, and provides a vector for new players. Arcade is gravy on top.
Beyond these core modes, there's a need to grow the audience: even StarCraft II didn't have a big enough audience to warrant a sequel in today's market. In order to truly revitalize RTS, Stormgate had to aim higher.
So we set out for Stormgate to provide four foundational pillars (campaign, competitive, co-op, and custom), with expanded social play, and to consciously straddle the tastes of both existing players and a broader new audience. That's a tall order for a newly formed studio working in a new engine, building a new universe, with less time and resources than Blizzard. But this scope was based on data, and with some uniquely experienced developers, we believed we at least had a shot.
They deliberately chose this huge scope and they thought they could make it.
Would the outcome have been different with a smaller surface area? Would the outcome have been different focusing on just the existing audience?
The short answer is yes, but it's not clear that that would be a winning strategy either. Other recent releases with smaller surface area who focused on the existing audience produced $10M to $25M in gross revenue, according to Gamalytic. That's a better outcome than Stormgate, but still far short of the bar.
From the perspective of many large publishers, $100M in revenue is a modest outcome. $500M starts to get interesting. $1B and up is a typical aspiration for new releases.
And here he pretty much admits they weren't interested in starting small to grow later but tried to go for the top right off the bat.
Frost Giant was forced to launch Stormgate's early access prematurely to get some additional budget for the game's development. The early access' game content was barebone and the subsequent development was rushed, so it seems Frost Giant was already running low on money when the focus of the development was still more on the technical side (Snowplay), and it probably wouldn't have mattered much if the game's content side had less stuff in development simultaneously or not. There would not be enough money left to polish the game modes even if there were less of them.
And Frost Giant want coop and MOBA-like 3v3 (likely an idea from the cancelled C&C: Generals 2) because they believe these modes have more potential for monetization than the core RTS modes, a F2P RTS with only the core RTS modes wouldn't be sustainable anyway.
On September 10 2025 04:18 Gorsameth wrote: The idea that the RTS market is saturated is just bullshit and Stormgate even proves that by showing the hype that exists for a game to be the next big RTS.
Hype existed for Stormgate because SC2 community (at least a big part of it) thought it would be an SC2 spiritual successor. They expected the game to match the quality, content and features SC2 developed over 5-7 years of development + 10 years of post-launch support with the resources of one of the biggest game studios out there. When those expectations weren't met, then it became a shitshow and then FG was blamed as to why they were hyping their game so much.
That kind of "hype" is a poisoned chalice. There might be room for other types of RTSes or smaller scope RTSes but I don't think there is a room for an SC2-like RTS to be a big success (ie. "the next big RTS") and that's what FG were aiming for. If someone said there was no room for an RTS to sell a few hundred thousands of copies and be a financial success for a smaller studio with a smaller budget, then they would obviously be incorrect.
But it's all going back to the point of them trying to do too much at the start. Even if the game would be touted as a spiritual successor to SC2 then considering the studio size and funding available they should start smaller and grow over time. Like it is mentioned in the video I posted above from Bearlike (one of the 2 devs behind Mechabellum, which right now is running it's 5th season, has competitive scene including automated 1v1 and 2v2 tournaments as well as cash prize tournaments and cosmetic mtx) - you get one chance at this and you better not screw it up. But once you had a successful launch even on a smaller project you can then grow it since at least you have some stable user base and now know your available funds and can adjust the scope accordingly. Baby steps.
Edit: Also, I think people would appreciate it a bit more if they were at least honest and came out and said that they fucked up and need to cut their losses. They tried, they failed (no shame in that). But the constant gaslighting is just obnoxious.
I don't think anyone (including Tim Morten) is disputing that they bit off more than they could chew.
Stormgate intended to build upon knowledge gained from StarCraft II. The historical numbers were clear: campaign players are the biggest audience, competitive players are the most persistent and vocal audience. Co-op appeals to a cross-section of both, and provides a vector for new players. Arcade is gravy on top.
Beyond these core modes, there's a need to grow the audience: even StarCraft II didn't have a big enough audience to warrant a sequel in today's market. In order to truly revitalize RTS, Stormgate had to aim higher.
So we set out for Stormgate to provide four foundational pillars (campaign, competitive, co-op, and custom), with expanded social play, and to consciously straddle the tastes of both existing players and a broader new audience. That's a tall order for a newly formed studio working in a new engine, building a new universe, with less time and resources than Blizzard. But this scope was based on data, and with some uniquely experienced developers, we believed we at least had a shot.
They deliberately chose this huge scope and they thought they could make it.
Would the outcome have been different with a smaller surface area? Would the outcome have been different focusing on just the existing audience?
The short answer is yes, but it's not clear that that would be a winning strategy either. Other recent releases with smaller surface area who focused on the existing audience produced $10M to $25M in gross revenue, according to Gamalytic. That's a better outcome than Stormgate, but still far short of the bar.
From the perspective of many large publishers, $100M in revenue is a modest outcome. $500M starts to get interesting. $1B and up is a typical aspiration for new releases.
And here he pretty much admits they weren't interested in starting small to grow later but tried to go for the top right off the bat.
Yeah? They did think they could pull it off in 2020. It doesn't mean he doesn't realize now that it was a mistake in hindsight.
Here is him shortly after EA launch saying that the big lesson they learned was that the game would have been more successful if they went with a narrower scope but a higher polish level:
On September 10 2025 04:18 Gorsameth wrote: The idea that the RTS market is saturated is just bullshit and Stormgate even proves that by showing the hype that exists for a game to be the next big RTS.
Hype existed for Stormgate because SC2 community (at least a big part of it) thought it would be an SC2 spiritual successor. They expected the game to match the quality, content and features SC2 developed over 5-7 years of development + 10 years of post-launch support with the resources of one of the biggest game studios out there. When those expectations weren't met, then it became a shitshow and then FG was blamed as to why they were hyping their game so much.
That kind of "hype" is a poisoned chalice. There might be room for other types of RTSes or smaller scope RTSes but I don't think there is a room for an SC2-like RTS to be a big success (ie. "the next big RTS") and that's what FG were aiming for. If someone said there was no room for an RTS to sell a few hundred thousands of copies and be a financial success for a smaller studio with a smaller budget, then they would obviously be incorrect.
But it's all going back to the point of them trying to do too much at the start. Even if the game would be touted as a spiritual successor to SC2 then considering the studio size and funding available they should start smaller and grow over time. Like it is mentioned in the video I posted above from Bearlike (one of the 2 devs behind Mechabellum, which right now is running it's 5th season, has competitive scene including automated 1v1 and 2v2 tournaments as well as cash prize tournaments and cosmetic mtx) - you get one chance at this and you better not screw it up. But once you had a successful launch even on a smaller project you can then grow it since at least you have some stable user base and now know your available funds and can adjust the scope accordingly. Baby steps.
Edit: Also, I think people would appreciate it a bit more if they were at least honest and came out and said that they fucked up and need to cut their losses. They tried, they failed (no shame in that). But the constant gaslighting is just obnoxious.
I don't think anyone (including Tim Morten) is disputing that they bit off more than they could chew.
In his own words:
Stormgate intended to build upon knowledge gained from StarCraft II. The historical numbers were clear: campaign players are the biggest audience, competitive players are the most persistent and vocal audience. Co-op appeals to a cross-section of both, and provides a vector for new players. Arcade is gravy on top.
Beyond these core modes, there's a need to grow the audience: even StarCraft II didn't have a big enough audience to warrant a sequel in today's market. In order to truly revitalize RTS, Stormgate had to aim higher.
So we set out for Stormgate to provide four foundational pillars (campaign, competitive, co-op, and custom), with expanded social play, and to consciously straddle the tastes of both existing players and a broader new audience. That's a tall order for a newly formed studio working in a new engine, building a new universe, with less time and resources than Blizzard. But this scope was based on data, and with some uniquely experienced developers, we believed we at least had a shot.
They deliberately chose this huge scope and they thought they could make it.
Would the outcome have been different with a smaller surface area? Would the outcome have been different focusing on just the existing audience?
The short answer is yes, but it's not clear that that would be a winning strategy either. Other recent releases with smaller surface area who focused on the existing audience produced $10M to $25M in gross revenue, according to Gamalytic. That's a better outcome than Stormgate, but still far short of the bar.
From the perspective of many large publishers, $100M in revenue is a modest outcome. $500M starts to get interesting. $1B and up is a typical aspiration for new releases.
And here he pretty much admits they weren't interested in starting small to grow later but tried to go for the top right off the bat.
Yeah? They did think they could pull it off in 2020. It doesn't mean he doesn't realize now that it was a mistake in hindsight.
Here is him shortly after EA launch saying that the big lesson they learned was that the game would have been more successful if they went with a narrower scope but a higher polish level: https://youtu.be/IKbYztXs5uc?si=8LDrm5g1TVf6kA-f&t=1139
But that isn't a lesson 2 senior game producers and a whole team of experienced devs should still need to learn. That might be something their intern still needs to learn, but ffs, iterative design has been a staple of any software design for roughly 30 years now.
On September 10 2025 04:18 Gorsameth wrote: The idea that the RTS market is saturated is just bullshit and Stormgate even proves that by showing the hype that exists for a game to be the next big RTS.
Hype existed for Stormgate because SC2 community (at least a big part of it) thought it would be an SC2 spiritual successor. They expected the game to match the quality, content and features SC2 developed over 5-7 years of development + 10 years of post-launch support with the resources of one of the biggest game studios out there. When those expectations weren't met, then it became a shitshow and then FG was blamed as to why they were hyping their game so much.
That kind of "hype" is a poisoned chalice. There might be room for other types of RTSes or smaller scope RTSes but I don't think there is a room for an SC2-like RTS to be a big success (ie. "the next big RTS") and that's what FG were aiming for. If someone said there was no room for an RTS to sell a few hundred thousands of copies and be a financial success for a smaller studio with a smaller budget, then they would obviously be incorrect.
But it's all going back to the point of them trying to do too much at the start. Even if the game would be touted as a spiritual successor to SC2 then considering the studio size and funding available they should start smaller and grow over time. Like it is mentioned in the video I posted above from Bearlike (one of the 2 devs behind Mechabellum, which right now is running it's 5th season, has competitive scene including automated 1v1 and 2v2 tournaments as well as cash prize tournaments and cosmetic mtx) - you get one chance at this and you better not screw it up. But once you had a successful launch even on a smaller project you can then grow it since at least you have some stable user base and now know your available funds and can adjust the scope accordingly. Baby steps.
Edit: Also, I think people would appreciate it a bit more if they were at least honest and came out and said that they fucked up and need to cut their losses. They tried, they failed (no shame in that). But the constant gaslighting is just obnoxious.
I don't think anyone (including Tim Morten) is disputing that they bit off more than they could chew.
In his own words:
Stormgate intended to build upon knowledge gained from StarCraft II. The historical numbers were clear: campaign players are the biggest audience, competitive players are the most persistent and vocal audience. Co-op appeals to a cross-section of both, and provides a vector for new players. Arcade is gravy on top.
Beyond these core modes, there's a need to grow the audience: even StarCraft II didn't have a big enough audience to warrant a sequel in today's market. In order to truly revitalize RTS, Stormgate had to aim higher.
So we set out for Stormgate to provide four foundational pillars (campaign, competitive, co-op, and custom), with expanded social play, and to consciously straddle the tastes of both existing players and a broader new audience. That's a tall order for a newly formed studio working in a new engine, building a new universe, with less time and resources than Blizzard. But this scope was based on data, and with some uniquely experienced developers, we believed we at least had a shot.
They deliberately chose this huge scope and they thought they could make it.
Would the outcome have been different with a smaller surface area? Would the outcome have been different focusing on just the existing audience?
The short answer is yes, but it's not clear that that would be a winning strategy either. Other recent releases with smaller surface area who focused on the existing audience produced $10M to $25M in gross revenue, according to Gamalytic. That's a better outcome than Stormgate, but still far short of the bar.
From the perspective of many large publishers, $100M in revenue is a modest outcome. $500M starts to get interesting. $1B and up is a typical aspiration for new releases.
And here he pretty much admits they weren't interested in starting small to grow later but tried to go for the top right off the bat.
Yeah? They did think they could pull it off in 2020. It doesn't mean he doesn't realize now that it was a mistake in hindsight.
Here is him shortly after EA launch saying that the big lesson they learned was that the game would have been more successful if they went with a narrower scope but a higher polish level: https://youtu.be/IKbYztXs5uc?si=8LDrm5g1TVf6kA-f&t=1139
But that isn't a lesson 2 senior game producers and a whole team of experienced devs should still need to learn. That might be something their intern still needs to learn, but ffs, iterative design has been a staple of any software design for roughly 30 years now.
Full agreement here. I'm a software dev (not game dev) but even I could see disaster brewing here basically from the get go (you can check my posts earlier in this thread, where I went from optimistic on announcement to pessimistic when they have shown their first stuff way back when). I'd expect an experienced team of devs to know what they're doing. Apparently they might have experience making games but it was all under the umbrella of a huge corp with pretty much infinite resources they could pour into it so they had no idea how it works in the "real world" outside of this bubble.
Kinda like all those ex-FAANG devs trying to find work outside of those 5 companies and facing harsh realities (quite often they're un-hirable outside of this bubble because of not just their bloated egos but also biases taken from working for big corps that simply don't work in smaller settings).
Yeah, it's all about scope. “Too much surface area”. That's why Mickey Nielson's script was a bag of hot turds. It's the grand scope that did it. That's why the faction design is derivative and boring. Scope just too huge. That's why the art went from meh to liquid dogshit. Too much surface area. That's why coop was chinese water torture from day 1, and 3v3 was a nothingburger that never saw the light of day. Reach exceeds grasp. That's why the sound design was like chopsticks on a folger's can.
Like I'm tellin ya, if the mechanic gives my car back with more problems, I'm gonna pay him again. To polish it. Because it's just a matter of time. Not because he sucks at working on cars.
Spartak you are 100% downs, and should be remanded to working in a toll booth in New Mexico for the rest of your life. without food or water
Fuck, jebaited by Sparty again. Such a curb-stompable face though, I can't help it. Anyone taking bullets for Tim M or Tim C at this point are aggressively stupid, or simply have no humility. And how utterly myopic it is to believe, even ostensibly, that a “next great Blizz-style RTS” is impossible based on the performance of Stormgate. Quite possibly the worst take in human history. 150 points from Hufflepuff.
On September 10 2025 04:18 Gorsameth wrote: The idea that the RTS market is saturated is just bullshit and Stormgate even proves that by showing the hype that exists for a game to be the next big RTS.
Hype existed for Stormgate because SC2 community (at least a big part of it) thought it would be an SC2 spiritual successor. They expected the game to match the quality, content and features SC2 developed over 5-7 years of development + 10 years of post-launch support with the resources of one of the biggest game studios out there. When those expectations weren't met, then it became a shitshow and then FG was blamed as to why they were hyping their game so much.
That kind of "hype" is a poisoned chalice. There might be room for other types of RTSes or smaller scope RTSes but I don't think there is a room for an SC2-like RTS to be a big success (ie. "the next big RTS") and that's what FG were aiming for. If someone said there was no room for an RTS to sell a few hundred thousands of copies and be a financial success for a smaller studio with a smaller budget, then they would obviously be incorrect.
But it's all going back to the point of them trying to do too much at the start. Even if the game would be touted as a spiritual successor to SC2 then considering the studio size and funding available they should start smaller and grow over time. Like it is mentioned in the video I posted above from Bearlike (one of the 2 devs behind Mechabellum, which right now is running it's 5th season, has competitive scene including automated 1v1 and 2v2 tournaments as well as cash prize tournaments and cosmetic mtx) - you get one chance at this and you better not screw it up. But once you had a successful launch even on a smaller project you can then grow it since at least you have some stable user base and now know your available funds and can adjust the scope accordingly. Baby steps.
Edit: Also, I think people would appreciate it a bit more if they were at least honest and came out and said that they fucked up and need to cut their losses. They tried, they failed (no shame in that). But the constant gaslighting is just obnoxious.
I don't think anyone (including Tim Morten) is disputing that they bit off more than they could chew.
Stormgate intended to build upon knowledge gained from StarCraft II. The historical numbers were clear: campaign players are the biggest audience, competitive players are the most persistent and vocal audience. Co-op appeals to a cross-section of both, and provides a vector for new players. Arcade is gravy on top.
Beyond these core modes, there's a need to grow the audience: even StarCraft II didn't have a big enough audience to warrant a sequel in today's market. In order to truly revitalize RTS, Stormgate had to aim higher.
So we set out for Stormgate to provide four foundational pillars (campaign, competitive, co-op, and custom), with expanded social play, and to consciously straddle the tastes of both existing players and a broader new audience. That's a tall order for a newly formed studio working in a new engine, building a new universe, with less time and resources than Blizzard. But this scope was based on data, and with some uniquely experienced developers, we believed we at least had a shot.
.
Combination of the guilt of blowing through 35+ million of investor/kickstarter money to create a dud and trying to put a positive spin on it since he will be out in the private sector again soon no doubt looking for a new gig.Another crowdfund is out of the question.
They probably should have released the campaign editor during early access, announced a 6 month window for people to make a custom campaign and entered into a profit sharing agreement with the creators of the best campaigns, the creators keeping 25% and FG 75%.Price a 10 mission campaign at 4.99 or something reasonable.
That way they bring in revenue without using FG resources and gives incentive to creators to make the best campaign possible as there is financial incentive.Obviously would help if the game was better, but seems a better way to reach those very high financial goals.
On September 10 2025 04:18 Gorsameth wrote: The idea that the RTS market is saturated is just bullshit and Stormgate even proves that by showing the hype that exists for a game to be the next big RTS.
Hype existed for Stormgate because SC2 community (at least a big part of it) thought it would be an SC2 spiritual successor. They expected the game to match the quality, content and features SC2 developed over 5-7 years of development + 10 years of post-launch support with the resources of one of the biggest game studios out there. When those expectations weren't met, then it became a shitshow and then FG was blamed as to why they were hyping their game so much.
That kind of "hype" is a poisoned chalice. There might be room for other types of RTSes or smaller scope RTSes but I don't think there is a room for an SC2-like RTS to be a big success (ie. "the next big RTS") and that's what FG were aiming for. If someone said there was no room for an RTS to sell a few hundred thousands of copies and be a financial success for a smaller studio with a smaller budget, then they would obviously be incorrect.
But it's all going back to the point of them trying to do too much at the start. Even if the game would be touted as a spiritual successor to SC2 then considering the studio size and funding available they should start smaller and grow over time. Like it is mentioned in the video I posted above from Bearlike (one of the 2 devs behind Mechabellum, which right now is running it's 5th season, has competitive scene including automated 1v1 and 2v2 tournaments as well as cash prize tournaments and cosmetic mtx) - you get one chance at this and you better not screw it up. But once you had a successful launch even on a smaller project you can then grow it since at least you have some stable user base and now know your available funds and can adjust the scope accordingly. Baby steps.
Edit: Also, I think people would appreciate it a bit more if they were at least honest and came out and said that they fucked up and need to cut their losses. They tried, they failed (no shame in that). But the constant gaslighting is just obnoxious.
I don't think anyone (including Tim Morten) is disputing that they bit off more than they could chew.
In his own words:
Stormgate intended to build upon knowledge gained from StarCraft II. The historical numbers were clear: campaign players are the biggest audience, competitive players are the most persistent and vocal audience. Co-op appeals to a cross-section of both, and provides a vector for new players. Arcade is gravy on top.
Beyond these core modes, there's a need to grow the audience: even StarCraft II didn't have a big enough audience to warrant a sequel in today's market. In order to truly revitalize RTS, Stormgate had to aim higher.
So we set out for Stormgate to provide four foundational pillars (campaign, competitive, co-op, and custom), with expanded social play, and to consciously straddle the tastes of both existing players and a broader new audience. That's a tall order for a newly formed studio working in a new engine, building a new universe, with less time and resources than Blizzard. But this scope was based on data, and with some uniquely experienced developers, we believed we at least had a shot.
They deliberately chose this huge scope and they thought they could make it.
Would the outcome have been different with a smaller surface area? Would the outcome have been different focusing on just the existing audience?
The short answer is yes, but it's not clear that that would be a winning strategy either. Other recent releases with smaller surface area who focused on the existing audience produced $10M to $25M in gross revenue, according to Gamalytic. That's a better outcome than Stormgate, but still far short of the bar.
From the perspective of many large publishers, $100M in revenue is a modest outcome. $500M starts to get interesting. $1B and up is a typical aspiration for new releases.
And here he pretty much admits they weren't interested in starting small to grow later but tried to go for the top right off the bat.
Yeah? They did think they could pull it off in 2020. It doesn't mean he doesn't realize now that it was a mistake in hindsight.
Here is him shortly after EA launch saying that the big lesson they learned was that the game would have been more successful if they went with a narrower scope but a higher polish level: https://youtu.be/IKbYztXs5uc?si=8LDrm5g1TVf6kA-f&t=1139
But that isn't a lesson 2 senior game producers and a whole team of experienced devs should still need to learn. That might be something their intern still needs to learn, but ffs, iterative design has been a staple of any software design for roughly 30 years now.
I don't think they thought they would be able to deliver everything at SC2 quality level at release. They probably knew they would first release a rough around the edges product and then iterate on it for a long time. They might have expected the audience to be more tolerant/supportive of the initial release knowing that it can't match SC2's current quality, content and features. You can argue they should have guessed that but I think that is only obvious with hindsight. It is not like anyone else tried it before. Stormgate was the first big budget RTS of this type since SC2. It will possibly be the last.
On September 10 2025 04:18 Gorsameth wrote: The idea that the RTS market is saturated is just bullshit and Stormgate even proves that by showing the hype that exists for a game to be the next big RTS.
Hype existed for Stormgate because SC2 community (at least a big part of it) thought it would be an SC2 spiritual successor. They expected the game to match the quality, content and features SC2 developed over 5-7 years of development + 10 years of post-launch support with the resources of one of the biggest game studios out there. When those expectations weren't met, then it became a shitshow and then FG was blamed as to why they were hyping their game so much.
That kind of "hype" is a poisoned chalice. There might be room for other types of RTSes or smaller scope RTSes but I don't think there is a room for an SC2-like RTS to be a big success (ie. "the next big RTS") and that's what FG were aiming for. If someone said there was no room for an RTS to sell a few hundred thousands of copies and be a financial success for a smaller studio with a smaller budget, then they would obviously be incorrect.
But it's all going back to the point of them trying to do too much at the start. Even if the game would be touted as a spiritual successor to SC2 then considering the studio size and funding available they should start smaller and grow over time. Like it is mentioned in the video I posted above from Bearlike (one of the 2 devs behind Mechabellum, which right now is running it's 5th season, has competitive scene including automated 1v1 and 2v2 tournaments as well as cash prize tournaments and cosmetic mtx) - you get one chance at this and you better not screw it up. But once you had a successful launch even on a smaller project you can then grow it since at least you have some stable user base and now know your available funds and can adjust the scope accordingly. Baby steps.
Edit: Also, I think people would appreciate it a bit more if they were at least honest and came out and said that they fucked up and need to cut their losses. They tried, they failed (no shame in that). But the constant gaslighting is just obnoxious.
I don't think anyone (including Tim Morten) is disputing that they bit off more than they could chew.
In his own words:
Stormgate intended to build upon knowledge gained from StarCraft II. The historical numbers were clear: campaign players are the biggest audience, competitive players are the most persistent and vocal audience. Co-op appeals to a cross-section of both, and provides a vector for new players. Arcade is gravy on top.
Beyond these core modes, there's a need to grow the audience: even StarCraft II didn't have a big enough audience to warrant a sequel in today's market. In order to truly revitalize RTS, Stormgate had to aim higher.
So we set out for Stormgate to provide four foundational pillars (campaign, competitive, co-op, and custom), with expanded social play, and to consciously straddle the tastes of both existing players and a broader new audience. That's a tall order for a newly formed studio working in a new engine, building a new universe, with less time and resources than Blizzard. But this scope was based on data, and with some uniquely experienced developers, we believed we at least had a shot.
They deliberately chose this huge scope and they thought they could make it.
Would the outcome have been different with a smaller surface area? Would the outcome have been different focusing on just the existing audience?
The short answer is yes, but it's not clear that that would be a winning strategy either. Other recent releases with smaller surface area who focused on the existing audience produced $10M to $25M in gross revenue, according to Gamalytic. That's a better outcome than Stormgate, but still far short of the bar.
From the perspective of many large publishers, $100M in revenue is a modest outcome. $500M starts to get interesting. $1B and up is a typical aspiration for new releases.
And here he pretty much admits they weren't interested in starting small to grow later but tried to go for the top right off the bat.
Yeah? They did think they could pull it off in 2020. It doesn't mean he doesn't realize now that it was a mistake in hindsight.
Here is him shortly after EA launch saying that the big lesson they learned was that the game would have been more successful if they went with a narrower scope but a higher polish level: https://youtu.be/IKbYztXs5uc?si=8LDrm5g1TVf6kA-f&t=1139
But that isn't a lesson 2 senior game producers and a whole team of experienced devs should still need to learn. That might be something their intern still needs to learn, but ffs, iterative design has been a staple of any software design for roughly 30 years now.
I don't think they thought they would be able to deliver everything at SC2 quality level at release. They probably knew they would first release a rough around the edges product and then iterate on it for a long time. They might have expected the audience to be more tolerant/supportive of the initial release knowing that it can't match SC2's current quality, content and features. You can argue they should have guessed that but I think that is only obvious with hindsight. It is not like anyone else tried it before. Stormgate was the first big budget RTS of this type since SC2. It will possibly be the last.
again, its not about people not being tolerant or supportive. Frost Giant should have never released a campaign in that initial state for early access. The entire blame falls on them. It was a mockery that they expected people to pay for those missions. The launch would have been better had it not been included at all. work in progress is not an excuse to put just anything out to the public, especially not if it is paid content. I cant recall any other early access that had that low level of quality control. I dont get how that was approved. I can somewhat understand wanting to get larger campaign mission feedback from a playerbase, but those cutscenes and character models had no right seeing the light of day.
On September 10 2025 04:18 Gorsameth wrote: The idea that the RTS market is saturated is just bullshit and Stormgate even proves that by showing the hype that exists for a game to be the next big RTS.
Hype existed for Stormgate because SC2 community (at least a big part of it) thought it would be an SC2 spiritual successor. They expected the game to match the quality, content and features SC2 developed over 5-7 years of development + 10 years of post-launch support with the resources of one of the biggest game studios out there. When those expectations weren't met, then it became a shitshow and then FG was blamed as to why they were hyping their game so much.
That kind of "hype" is a poisoned chalice. There might be room for other types of RTSes or smaller scope RTSes but I don't think there is a room for an SC2-like RTS to be a big success (ie. "the next big RTS") and that's what FG were aiming for. If someone said there was no room for an RTS to sell a few hundred thousands of copies and be a financial success for a smaller studio with a smaller budget, then they would obviously be incorrect.
But it's all going back to the point of them trying to do too much at the start. Even if the game would be touted as a spiritual successor to SC2 then considering the studio size and funding available they should start smaller and grow over time. Like it is mentioned in the video I posted above from Bearlike (one of the 2 devs behind Mechabellum, which right now is running it's 5th season, has competitive scene including automated 1v1 and 2v2 tournaments as well as cash prize tournaments and cosmetic mtx) - you get one chance at this and you better not screw it up. But once you had a successful launch even on a smaller project you can then grow it since at least you have some stable user base and now know your available funds and can adjust the scope accordingly. Baby steps.
Edit: Also, I think people would appreciate it a bit more if they were at least honest and came out and said that they fucked up and need to cut their losses. They tried, they failed (no shame in that). But the constant gaslighting is just obnoxious.
I don't think anyone (including Tim Morten) is disputing that they bit off more than they could chew.
In his own words:
Stormgate intended to build upon knowledge gained from StarCraft II. The historical numbers were clear: campaign players are the biggest audience, competitive players are the most persistent and vocal audience. Co-op appeals to a cross-section of both, and provides a vector for new players. Arcade is gravy on top.
Beyond these core modes, there's a need to grow the audience: even StarCraft II didn't have a big enough audience to warrant a sequel in today's market. In order to truly revitalize RTS, Stormgate had to aim higher.
So we set out for Stormgate to provide four foundational pillars (campaign, competitive, co-op, and custom), with expanded social play, and to consciously straddle the tastes of both existing players and a broader new audience. That's a tall order for a newly formed studio working in a new engine, building a new universe, with less time and resources than Blizzard. But this scope was based on data, and with some uniquely experienced developers, we believed we at least had a shot.
They deliberately chose this huge scope and they thought they could make it.
Would the outcome have been different with a smaller surface area? Would the outcome have been different focusing on just the existing audience?
The short answer is yes, but it's not clear that that would be a winning strategy either. Other recent releases with smaller surface area who focused on the existing audience produced $10M to $25M in gross revenue, according to Gamalytic. That's a better outcome than Stormgate, but still far short of the bar.
From the perspective of many large publishers, $100M in revenue is a modest outcome. $500M starts to get interesting. $1B and up is a typical aspiration for new releases.
And here he pretty much admits they weren't interested in starting small to grow later but tried to go for the top right off the bat.
Yeah? They did think they could pull it off in 2020. It doesn't mean he doesn't realize now that it was a mistake in hindsight.
Here is him shortly after EA launch saying that the big lesson they learned was that the game would have been more successful if they went with a narrower scope but a higher polish level: https://youtu.be/IKbYztXs5uc?si=8LDrm5g1TVf6kA-f&t=1139
But that isn't a lesson 2 senior game producers and a whole team of experienced devs should still need to learn. That might be something their intern still needs to learn, but ffs, iterative design has been a staple of any software design for roughly 30 years now.
I don't think they thought they would be able to deliver everything at SC2 quality level at release. They probably knew they would first release a rough around the edges product and then iterate on it for a long time. They might have expected the audience to be more tolerant/supportive of the initial release knowing that it can't match SC2's current quality, content and features. You can argue they should have guessed that but I think that is only obvious with hindsight. It is not like anyone else tried it before. Stormgate was the first big budget RTS of this type since SC2. It will possibly be the last.
which would just further prove their incompetence. You dont turn up with 4 things done incredibly badly. You focus on 1 thing and make it good and fun to play and then you add more.
You dont need the power of hindsight to understand that.
On September 10 2025 04:18 Gorsameth wrote: The idea that the RTS market is saturated is just bullshit and Stormgate even proves that by showing the hype that exists for a game to be the next big RTS.
Hype existed for Stormgate because SC2 community (at least a big part of it) thought it would be an SC2 spiritual successor. They expected the game to match the quality, content and features SC2 developed over 5-7 years of development + 10 years of post-launch support with the resources of one of the biggest game studios out there. When those expectations weren't met, then it became a shitshow and then FG was blamed as to why they were hyping their game so much.
That kind of "hype" is a poisoned chalice. There might be room for other types of RTSes or smaller scope RTSes but I don't think there is a room for an SC2-like RTS to be a big success (ie. "the next big RTS") and that's what FG were aiming for. If someone said there was no room for an RTS to sell a few hundred thousands of copies and be a financial success for a smaller studio with a smaller budget, then they would obviously be incorrect.
But it's all going back to the point of them trying to do too much at the start. Even if the game would be touted as a spiritual successor to SC2 then considering the studio size and funding available they should start smaller and grow over time. Like it is mentioned in the video I posted above from Bearlike (one of the 2 devs behind Mechabellum, which right now is running it's 5th season, has competitive scene including automated 1v1 and 2v2 tournaments as well as cash prize tournaments and cosmetic mtx) - you get one chance at this and you better not screw it up. But once you had a successful launch even on a smaller project you can then grow it since at least you have some stable user base and now know your available funds and can adjust the scope accordingly. Baby steps.
Edit: Also, I think people would appreciate it a bit more if they were at least honest and came out and said that they fucked up and need to cut their losses. They tried, they failed (no shame in that). But the constant gaslighting is just obnoxious.
I don't think anyone (including Tim Morten) is disputing that they bit off more than they could chew.
In his own words:
Stormgate intended to build upon knowledge gained from StarCraft II. The historical numbers were clear: campaign players are the biggest audience, competitive players are the most persistent and vocal audience. Co-op appeals to a cross-section of both, and provides a vector for new players. Arcade is gravy on top.
Beyond these core modes, there's a need to grow the audience: even StarCraft II didn't have a big enough audience to warrant a sequel in today's market. In order to truly revitalize RTS, Stormgate had to aim higher.
So we set out for Stormgate to provide four foundational pillars (campaign, competitive, co-op, and custom), with expanded social play, and to consciously straddle the tastes of both existing players and a broader new audience. That's a tall order for a newly formed studio working in a new engine, building a new universe, with less time and resources than Blizzard. But this scope was based on data, and with some uniquely experienced developers, we believed we at least had a shot.
They deliberately chose this huge scope and they thought they could make it.
Would the outcome have been different with a smaller surface area? Would the outcome have been different focusing on just the existing audience?
The short answer is yes, but it's not clear that that would be a winning strategy either. Other recent releases with smaller surface area who focused on the existing audience produced $10M to $25M in gross revenue, according to Gamalytic. That's a better outcome than Stormgate, but still far short of the bar.
From the perspective of many large publishers, $100M in revenue is a modest outcome. $500M starts to get interesting. $1B and up is a typical aspiration for new releases.
And here he pretty much admits they weren't interested in starting small to grow later but tried to go for the top right off the bat.
Yeah? They did think they could pull it off in 2020. It doesn't mean he doesn't realize now that it was a mistake in hindsight.
Here is him shortly after EA launch saying that the big lesson they learned was that the game would have been more successful if they went with a narrower scope but a higher polish level: https://youtu.be/IKbYztXs5uc?si=8LDrm5g1TVf6kA-f&t=1139
But that isn't a lesson 2 senior game producers and a whole team of experienced devs should still need to learn. That might be something their intern still needs to learn, but ffs, iterative design has been a staple of any software design for roughly 30 years now.
I don't think they thought they would be able to deliver everything at SC2 quality level at release. They probably knew they would first release a rough around the edges product and then iterate on it for a long time. They might have expected the audience to be more tolerant/supportive of the initial release knowing that it can't match SC2's current quality, content and features. You can argue they should have guessed that but I think that is only obvious with hindsight. It is not like anyone else tried it before. Stormgate was the first big budget RTS of this type since SC2. It will possibly be the last.
again, its not about people not being tolerant or supportive. Frost Giant should have never released a campaign in that initial state for early access. The entire blame falls on them. It was a mockery that they expected people to pay for those missions. The launch would have been better had it not been included at all. work in progress is not an excuse to put just anything out to the public, especially not if it is paid content. I cant recall any other early access that had that low level of quality control. I dont get how that was approved. I can somewhat understand wanting to get larger campaign mission feedback from a playerbase, but those cutscenes and character models had no right seeing the light of day.
It would have been better, sure. I don't think it would have been enough even if they released the campaign only at full launch and even if they made all those improvements without needing EA feedback. I think the bar a game of this style has to hit to get good reception is higher.
On September 10 2025 04:18 Gorsameth wrote: The idea that the RTS market is saturated is just bullshit and Stormgate even proves that by showing the hype that exists for a game to be the next big RTS.
Hype existed for Stormgate because SC2 community (at least a big part of it) thought it would be an SC2 spiritual successor. They expected the game to match the quality, content and features SC2 developed over 5-7 years of development + 10 years of post-launch support with the resources of one of the biggest game studios out there. When those expectations weren't met, then it became a shitshow and then FG was blamed as to why they were hyping their game so much.
That kind of "hype" is a poisoned chalice. There might be room for other types of RTSes or smaller scope RTSes but I don't think there is a room for an SC2-like RTS to be a big success (ie. "the next big RTS") and that's what FG were aiming for. If someone said there was no room for an RTS to sell a few hundred thousands of copies and be a financial success for a smaller studio with a smaller budget, then they would obviously be incorrect.
But it's all going back to the point of them trying to do too much at the start. Even if the game would be touted as a spiritual successor to SC2 then considering the studio size and funding available they should start smaller and grow over time. Like it is mentioned in the video I posted above from Bearlike (one of the 2 devs behind Mechabellum, which right now is running it's 5th season, has competitive scene including automated 1v1 and 2v2 tournaments as well as cash prize tournaments and cosmetic mtx) - you get one chance at this and you better not screw it up. But once you had a successful launch even on a smaller project you can then grow it since at least you have some stable user base and now know your available funds and can adjust the scope accordingly. Baby steps.
Edit: Also, I think people would appreciate it a bit more if they were at least honest and came out and said that they fucked up and need to cut their losses. They tried, they failed (no shame in that). But the constant gaslighting is just obnoxious.
I don't think anyone (including Tim Morten) is disputing that they bit off more than they could chew.
In his own words:
Stormgate intended to build upon knowledge gained from StarCraft II. The historical numbers were clear: campaign players are the biggest audience, competitive players are the most persistent and vocal audience. Co-op appeals to a cross-section of both, and provides a vector for new players. Arcade is gravy on top.
Beyond these core modes, there's a need to grow the audience: even StarCraft II didn't have a big enough audience to warrant a sequel in today's market. In order to truly revitalize RTS, Stormgate had to aim higher.
So we set out for Stormgate to provide four foundational pillars (campaign, competitive, co-op, and custom), with expanded social play, and to consciously straddle the tastes of both existing players and a broader new audience. That's a tall order for a newly formed studio working in a new engine, building a new universe, with less time and resources than Blizzard. But this scope was based on data, and with some uniquely experienced developers, we believed we at least had a shot.
They deliberately chose this huge scope and they thought they could make it.
Would the outcome have been different with a smaller surface area? Would the outcome have been different focusing on just the existing audience?
The short answer is yes, but it's not clear that that would be a winning strategy either. Other recent releases with smaller surface area who focused on the existing audience produced $10M to $25M in gross revenue, according to Gamalytic. That's a better outcome than Stormgate, but still far short of the bar.
From the perspective of many large publishers, $100M in revenue is a modest outcome. $500M starts to get interesting. $1B and up is a typical aspiration for new releases.
And here he pretty much admits they weren't interested in starting small to grow later but tried to go for the top right off the bat.
Yeah? They did think they could pull it off in 2020. It doesn't mean he doesn't realize now that it was a mistake in hindsight.
Here is him shortly after EA launch saying that the big lesson they learned was that the game would have been more successful if they went with a narrower scope but a higher polish level: https://youtu.be/IKbYztXs5uc?si=8LDrm5g1TVf6kA-f&t=1139
But that isn't a lesson 2 senior game producers and a whole team of experienced devs should still need to learn. That might be something their intern still needs to learn, but ffs, iterative design has been a staple of any software design for roughly 30 years now.
I don't think they thought they would be able to deliver everything at SC2 quality level at release. They probably knew they would first release a rough around the edges product and then iterate on it for a long time. They might have expected the audience to be more tolerant/supportive of the initial release knowing that it can't match SC2's current quality, content and features. You can argue they should have guessed that but I think that is only obvious with hindsight. It is not like anyone else tried it before. Stormgate was the first big budget RTS of this type since SC2. It will possibly be the last.
again, its not about people not being tolerant or supportive. Frost Giant should have never released a campaign in that initial state for early access. The entire blame falls on them. It was a mockery that they expected people to pay for those missions. The launch would have been better had it not been included at all. work in progress is not an excuse to put just anything out to the public, especially not if it is paid content. I cant recall any other early access that had that low level of quality control. I dont get how that was approved. I can somewhat understand wanting to get larger campaign mission feedback from a playerbase, but those cutscenes and character models had no right seeing the light of day.
It would have been better, sure. I don't think it would have been enough even if they released the campaign only at full launch and even if they made all those improvements without needing EA feedback. I think the bar a game of this style has to hit to get good reception is higher.
Yes, the bar is indeed higher then complete dogshit. Thankfully.
Is it higher then can be reached with 40 million? Absolutely not.
I don't think current campaign is "dogshit" by any reasonable definition. The mission design is quite good. Calling it dogshit is proving my point about the bar being unrealistically high.
On September 11 2025 19:12 _Spartak_ wrote: I don't think current campaign is "dogshit" by any reasonable definition. The mission design is quite good. Calling it dogshit is proving my point about the bar being unrealistically high.
It’s pretty OK
If this was the first pass, and first chance most got to get their hands on the game, I think reception would have been ‘hey this is pretty good, it’s not SC2’s campaign quality, but not bad!’.
Unfortunately for Frost Giant, it’s way harder to pull back a bad impression with a ‘pretty good’, than it is to start off ‘pretty good’.
If I have a terrible first date, if I somehow convince her to go for a second, the second has to be like top tier good. A bad one followed by a merely decent one, hm, probably not enough. If we had a decent first date, and a decent/good second, that’s some decent momentum to build on.
It's still miles behind the SC2 campaign. Mission design, writing, characters, meta progression, cinematics. Everything is just a worse version of SC2. So why would I play this if I can replay SC2 campaign for the 20th time and get a better experience? Convincing players to pay for something that is just a bad copy of what they already have is hard. I'd get it if the SG campaign did its own thing. But no, it just tries to copy SC2, but doesn't succeed.
Screenshots above look far better than the ones below. Even on the subreddit, which is notoriously negative about the game, the art improvements were considered a big positive even if most of them didn't think it was enough.
Edit: For context, the above message was comparing the screenshots from the initial gameplay reveal of SG with screenshots from the current build, claiming that the former were better.
EPT
