|
On July 17 2023 19:14 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2023 23:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 15 2023 20:56 WombaT wrote:On July 15 2023 07:28 Blargh wrote:
Doubtful.
I'm fairly certain StarCraft has been their least profitable game series in the last 10 years. Possibly even worse than Heroes of the storm which I frequently forget existed.
But I wouldn't be that surprised if they tried to spin something out of the StarCraft world. Starcraft 2 didn’t make WoW/League/Fortnite kinda money but it’s still pretty high up there in terms of all-time PC sales It just seems the publisher wants these perpetually monetisible games and it doesn’t naturally fit into that. But it still was wildly successful. If an SC3 launched with co-op, regular skins and announcer packs, the odd war chest etc, I think there’d be tons of potential for squeezing some extra cash out. Unfortunately it felt like it got the structure in place too late for many of the non-hardcore players who’d already moved on to other things. SC2 continues to be awesome. The game has a metric tonne of content. A person with full time IRL responsibilities can play the game forever. It’s still an awesome game but it took a long time for them to get it right with additional content for more casual players.
I have a friend in Silver and a relative in Gold and they have been happy with the content level since 2010.
SC1 is an antisocial experience and prominent community members like Tasteless actively lobbied for SC2 to be an antisocial experience.
SC2 got more 'social' when the RA3 guys laid off by EALA arrived at Blizzard and added RA3 co op.
Relative to the other RTS offerings in 2010 SC2 was pretty social.
For me SC1 was quite social because i usually played in a PCBang. There was always several regular attendees playing SC1. It was a party/casual atmosphere. I wonder what % of Korea's player base played mainly at a PCBang?
|
TBH with the attention Stormgate is getting from RTS fans I'd be surprised if somebody at Blizzard wasn't saying, "Wait, this is our market" and pushing to get an "SC3" game into development even if it wasn't already.
|
You guys have phones right?
|
From the source of the Drunk AMA: "I'm walking that back a bit. Don't use drunk sources!!! Lmao. But, the franchise isn't dead, put it that way."
Yeah, there are people in both Blizzard and Microsoft who are interested in continuing the franchise. But I seriously doubt there's anything in development beyond the conceptual pitch stage. Especially with Blizzard pulling funding for StarCraft esports and not even releasing any new merchandise since the winter.
The most promising piece of news that has mostly gone under the radar has been Blizzard outsourcing Warcraft III Reforged development to Playside Studios which has restored the features that got lost during the "reforging". But that's a franchise that they're already trying to branch out with.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50600 Posts
On July 18 2023 00:22 VGhost wrote:
TBH with the attention Stormgate is getting from RTS fans I'd be surprised if somebody at Blizzard wasn't saying, "Wait, this is our market" and pushing to get an "SC3" game into development even if it wasn't already.
and thats why competition is great!
|
Northern Ireland26223 Posts
On July 17 2023 23:00 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2023 19:14 WombaT wrote:On July 16 2023 23:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 15 2023 20:56 WombaT wrote:On July 15 2023 07:28 Blargh wrote:
Doubtful.
I'm fairly certain StarCraft has been their least profitable game series in the last 10 years. Possibly even worse than Heroes of the storm which I frequently forget existed.
But I wouldn't be that surprised if they tried to spin something out of the StarCraft world. Starcraft 2 didn’t make WoW/League/Fortnite kinda money but it’s still pretty high up there in terms of all-time PC sales It just seems the publisher wants these perpetually monetisible games and it doesn’t naturally fit into that. But it still was wildly successful. If an SC3 launched with co-op, regular skins and announcer packs, the odd war chest etc, I think there’d be tons of potential for squeezing some extra cash out. Unfortunately it felt like it got the structure in place too late for many of the non-hardcore players who’d already moved on to other things. SC2 continues to be awesome. The game has a metric tonne of content. A person with full time IRL responsibilities can play the game forever. It’s still an awesome game but it took a long time for them to get it right with additional content for more casual players. I have a friend in Silver and a relative in Gold and they have been happy with the content level since 2010. SC1 is an antisocial experience and prominent community members like Tasteless actively lobbied for SC2 to be an antisocial experience. SC2 got more 'social' when the RA3 guys laid off by EALA arrived at Blizzard and added RA3 co op. Relative to the other RTS offerings in 2010 SC2 was pretty social. For me SC1 was quite social because i usually played in a PCBang. There was always several regular attendees playing SC1. It was a party/casual atmosphere. I wonder what % of Korea's player base played mainly at a PCBang?
Hey I can only speak for my little corner but from what I recall, outside of balance whines the initial Bnet 2.0 and it being antisocial as an experience was the number one complaint of SC2 at launch.
BW and WC3 ran the channels better. WC3 had a custom game created within it that became one of the biggest games ever. WC3 had clans you could chill with upon logging.
SC2 was dogshit for that kind of stuff at launch, it gradually got better over time
If you want to gaslight everyone that these weren’t issues go ahead, nobody here is going to buy it.
It’s like you’re pathologically incapable of hearing any criticism whatsoever of anything that occurred under the Golden StewardshipTM of Bobby Kotick
I literally said it was a bloody fantastic game, but any potential SC3 needs what SC2 now has, at launch. Nope, not allowed. SC2 was perfectly social and fine at launch, nothing to see here.
|
On July 19 2023 00:34 Hyperturtle wrote:
From the source of the Drunk AMA: "I'm walking that back a bit. Don't use drunk sources!!! Lmao. But, the franchise isn't dead, put it that way."
Yeah, there are people in both Blizzard and Microsoft who are interested in continuing the franchise. But I seriously doubt there's anything in development beyond the conceptual pitch stage. Especially with Blizzard pulling funding for StarCraft esports and not even releasing any new merchandise since the winter.
The most promising piece of news that has mostly gone under the radar has been Blizzard outsourcing Warcraft III Reforged development to Playside Studios which has restored the features that got lost during the "reforging". But that's a franchise that they're already trying to branch out with.
The reality is an effort was made to make clear what's going to be at Blizzcon this year: the worlds of Warcraft, Diablo and Overwatch are going to be explored. Starcraft made neither the annoucement memo nor did a character appear in the graphic.
|
8751 Posts
Anyone gather any more information from Blizzcon? In my experience, there are some loose lips on Friday and Saturday nights. Who had drinks with someone who knows something?
|
On July 18 2023 00:22 VGhost wrote:
TBH with the attention Stormgate is getting from RTS fans I'd be surprised if somebody at Blizzard wasn't saying, "Wait, this is our market" and pushing to get an "SC3" game into development even if it wasn't already.
Blizzard for the last few years have made it very clear that they are much more interested in breaking into "new" markets rather than continuing to leverage their dominance of the few they already have.
Blizzard absolutely dominates the MMORPG and RTS markets and has for a decade and 2 decades respectively. One could make the argument they are the biggest player in the ARPG market as well, although to say they dominate this market would be a little bit of a stretch.
Prior to the launch of Diablo IV (which has gone SWIMMINGLY let me tell you /s) all of their focus in their new games has been on the FPS, and mobile game markets, while continuing to develop and milk their WoW cash cow.
Diablo IV has gotten almost no serious developer attention since it launched because their only interest has been pushing out a new expansion pack for it.
SC2, Warcraft 3, Heroes of the Storm have all been abandoned.
I don't know what in all of that tells you guys that you think Blizzard is interested in investing back into the RTS market. They are doing the absolute bare minimum to hang onto their control of the MMO market, and their place in the ARPG market. All of their focus and attention has been breaking into the mobile and FPS markets.
|
Blizzard might not have the inclination to invest more, but microsoft might as we can se with AoE2. have no idea if it will happen or not, but Im slightly more optimistic with MS in "charge"
|
On November 07 2023 05:12 Kreuger wrote:
Blizzard might not have the inclination to invest more, but microsoft might as we can se with AoE2. have no idea if it will happen or not, but Im slightly more optimistic with MS in "charge"
AoE2 is getting additional development because AoE2 introduces new DLC with new civs every so often that very much follows the "power creep, and overpowered on release to get people to buy them, nerf them later once they've been out for a bit" model that MoBAs use.
Now if someone wants to make a case for why that would be a good thing to add to Starcraft 2, I'd love to hear it.
Keep in mind they're able to do this because AoE2 has a very different fundamental model from Starcraft 2 or Warcraft 3 where all of the factions are fundamentally the same at the base level but with some minor differences in terms of stat values, available technologies, unit stats etc. The only truly unique thing about each civ is their unique unit(s), and even there not every civ has a unique unit as powerful as other civs do.
I personally don't see how a similar sort of model would ever work in a game like SC2 where all of the races are fundamentally different from each other, and even if a model like that COULD be implemented I don't think it would be good for the game to continue adding new match ups that need to then be calibrated and balanced long term.
|
United States33503 Posts
On November 07 2023 05:40 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2023 05:12 Kreuger wrote:
Blizzard might not have the inclination to invest more, but microsoft might as we can se with AoE2. have no idea if it will happen or not, but Im slightly more optimistic with MS in "charge" AoE2 is getting additional development because AoE2 introduces new DLC with new civs every so often that very much follows the "power creep, and overpowered on release to get people to buy them, nerf them later once they've been out for a bit" model that MoBAs use. Now if someone wants to make a case for why that would be a good thing to add to Starcraft 2, I'd love to hear it. Keep in mind they're able to do this because AoE2 has a very different fundamental model from Starcraft 2 or Warcraft 3 where all of the factions are fundamentally the same at the base level but with some minor differences in terms of stat values, available technologies, unit stats etc. The only truly unique thing about each civ is their unique unit(s), and even there not every civ has a unique unit as powerful as other civs do. I personally don't see how a similar sort of model would ever work in a game like SC2 where all of the races are fundamentally different from each other, and even if a model like that COULD be implemented I don't think it would be good for the game to continue adding new match ups that need to then be calibrated and balanced long term.
I mean, the model was in place with co-op commanders, but even that got canned because Acti-Blizz was not interested in making a little side money off of niche products. That's the kind of thing you hope changes going forward with MS—let good enough be good enough. The ship has definitely sailed with SC2 tho.
|
On November 07 2023 06:28 Waxangel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2023 05:40 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 07 2023 05:12 Kreuger wrote:
Blizzard might not have the inclination to invest more, but microsoft might as we can se with AoE2. have no idea if it will happen or not, but Im slightly more optimistic with MS in "charge" AoE2 is getting additional development because AoE2 introduces new DLC with new civs every so often that very much follows the "power creep, and overpowered on release to get people to buy them, nerf them later once they've been out for a bit" model that MoBAs use. Now if someone wants to make a case for why that would be a good thing to add to Starcraft 2, I'd love to hear it. Keep in mind they're able to do this because AoE2 has a very different fundamental model from Starcraft 2 or Warcraft 3 where all of the factions are fundamentally the same at the base level but with some minor differences in terms of stat values, available technologies, unit stats etc. The only truly unique thing about each civ is their unique unit(s), and even there not every civ has a unique unit as powerful as other civs do. I personally don't see how a similar sort of model would ever work in a game like SC2 where all of the races are fundamentally different from each other, and even if a model like that COULD be implemented I don't think it would be good for the game to continue adding new match ups that need to then be calibrated and balanced long term. I mean, the model was in place with co-op commanders, but even that got canned because Acti-Blizz was not interested in making a little side money off of niche products. That's the kind of thing you hope changes going forward with MS—let good enough be good enough. The ship has definitely sailed with SC2 tho.
That does seem to be the case, where there was SOME money to be made in SC2 selling skins, Co Op commanders and such, but it just wasn't the kind of insane money that could be made off of say Hearthstone packs or whatever exploitive model that Diablo Immortal uses.
Which is why I am convinced that Blizzard is not going to return to the RTS market. EVER.
You can't make that kind of money long term off of the RTS market the way you can off of things like mobile games, or all of the zillion ways that World of Warcraft is monetized. If someone wants to pitch me an RTS style game that can make that kind of money, that I would actually WANT to play, please enlighten me because I just don't see it happening.
If Blizzard isn't interested in making just "enough" money off of a product, and is now only interested in the mega lucrative models then they aren't going to return to RTS games. If they did it would be like a Starcraft Mobile "Clash of Clans" style game that everybody would hate.
|
On November 07 2023 08:21 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2023 06:28 Waxangel wrote:On November 07 2023 05:40 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 07 2023 05:12 Kreuger wrote:
Blizzard might not have the inclination to invest more, but microsoft might as we can se with AoE2. have no idea if it will happen or not, but Im slightly more optimistic with MS in "charge" AoE2 is getting additional development because AoE2 introduces new DLC with new civs every so often that very much follows the "power creep, and overpowered on release to get people to buy them, nerf them later once they've been out for a bit" model that MoBAs use. Now if someone wants to make a case for why that would be a good thing to add to Starcraft 2, I'd love to hear it. Keep in mind they're able to do this because AoE2 has a very different fundamental model from Starcraft 2 or Warcraft 3 where all of the factions are fundamentally the same at the base level but with some minor differences in terms of stat values, available technologies, unit stats etc. The only truly unique thing about each civ is their unique unit(s), and even there not every civ has a unique unit as powerful as other civs do. I personally don't see how a similar sort of model would ever work in a game like SC2 where all of the races are fundamentally different from each other, and even if a model like that COULD be implemented I don't think it would be good for the game to continue adding new match ups that need to then be calibrated and balanced long term. I mean, the model was in place with co-op commanders, but even that got canned because Acti-Blizz was not interested in making a little side money off of niche products. That's the kind of thing you hope changes going forward with MS—let good enough be good enough. The ship has definitely sailed with SC2 tho. That does seem to be the case, where there was SOME money to be made in SC2 selling skins, Co Op commanders and such, but it just wasn't the kind of insane money that could be made off of say Hearthstone packs or whatever exploitive model that Diablo Immortal uses. Which is why I am convinced that Blizzard is not going to return to the RTS market. EVER. You can't make that kind of money long term off of the RTS market the way you can off of things like mobile games, or all of the zillion ways that World of Warcraft is monetized. If someone wants to pitch me an RTS style game that can make that kind of money, that I would actually WANT to play, please enlighten me because I just don't see it happening. If Blizzard isn't interested in making just "enough" money off of a product, and is now only interested in the mega lucrative models then they aren't going to return to RTS games. If they did it would be like a Starcraft Mobile "Clash of Clans" style game that everybody would hate.
If monetization model is your primary concern there are plenty of ways to be exploitative with primarily cosmetic inventories. Simply do a battle pass, where you can obtain seasonal items, do randomized shops, where only certain items appear in your store at a time, and do night market, where every week or so random cosmetics are thrown into there at a discounted price and it's different for each person. Basically just copy what Valorant does they don't sell power or cards or any of that bullcrap hearthstone or Diablo immortal do and it's still lucrative. SC2 had microtransactions but it was very basic.
|
On November 07 2023 08:47 CicadaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2023 08:21 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 07 2023 06:28 Waxangel wrote:On November 07 2023 05:40 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 07 2023 05:12 Kreuger wrote:
Blizzard might not have the inclination to invest more, but microsoft might as we can se with AoE2. have no idea if it will happen or not, but Im slightly more optimistic with MS in "charge" AoE2 is getting additional development because AoE2 introduces new DLC with new civs every so often that very much follows the "power creep, and overpowered on release to get people to buy them, nerf them later once they've been out for a bit" model that MoBAs use. Now if someone wants to make a case for why that would be a good thing to add to Starcraft 2, I'd love to hear it. Keep in mind they're able to do this because AoE2 has a very different fundamental model from Starcraft 2 or Warcraft 3 where all of the factions are fundamentally the same at the base level but with some minor differences in terms of stat values, available technologies, unit stats etc. The only truly unique thing about each civ is their unique unit(s), and even there not every civ has a unique unit as powerful as other civs do. I personally don't see how a similar sort of model would ever work in a game like SC2 where all of the races are fundamentally different from each other, and even if a model like that COULD be implemented I don't think it would be good for the game to continue adding new match ups that need to then be calibrated and balanced long term. I mean, the model was in place with co-op commanders, but even that got canned because Acti-Blizz was not interested in making a little side money off of niche products. That's the kind of thing you hope changes going forward with MS—let good enough be good enough. The ship has definitely sailed with SC2 tho. That does seem to be the case, where there was SOME money to be made in SC2 selling skins, Co Op commanders and such, but it just wasn't the kind of insane money that could be made off of say Hearthstone packs or whatever exploitive model that Diablo Immortal uses. Which is why I am convinced that Blizzard is not going to return to the RTS market. EVER. You can't make that kind of money long term off of the RTS market the way you can off of things like mobile games, or all of the zillion ways that World of Warcraft is monetized. If someone wants to pitch me an RTS style game that can make that kind of money, that I would actually WANT to play, please enlighten me because I just don't see it happening. If Blizzard isn't interested in making just "enough" money off of a product, and is now only interested in the mega lucrative models then they aren't going to return to RTS games. If they did it would be like a Starcraft Mobile "Clash of Clans" style game that everybody would hate. If monetization model is your primary concern there are plenty of ways to be exploitative with primarily cosmetic inventories. Simply do a battle pass, where you can obtain seasonal items, do randomized shops, where only certain items appear in your store at a time, and do night market, where every week or so random cosmetics are thrown into there at a discounted price and it's different for each person. Basically just copy what Valorant does they don't sell power or cards or any of that bullcrap hearthstone or Diablo immortal do and it's still lucrative. SC2 had microtransactions but it was very basic.
And you'd just be selling cosmetics in there? I don't think there's that much demand for cosmetics in an RTS since you spend so little time actually looking at any one thing. Putting skins on your heroes, characters or guns is one thing because they are the only thing anyone is looking at but in an RTS your eyes are on 10 things at once, there's nowhere near as much incentive to customize any of it with cosmetics.
Thinking of all of the different things that Blizzard tried to sell with SC2, like Announcers, portraits, decals on buildings, borders for team games, unit skins, building skins, not to mention all of the potential money that could have been made in the Arcade if they ever really supported it. All of that still wasn't enough for them to keep going with SC2. What else could they throw in the shops to make enough money for Blizzard to want to develop an entire new game for it? I don't see it.
Again, the point is not whether or not I think there's enough money to be made in an RTS, the point is whether or not BLIZZARD thinks there's enough money to be made. Considering they completely abandoned SC2 and WC3 presumably because they weren't profitable enough, then we need to look at how much is monetized in SC2 and we need to imagine how they can double or even triple that just to even have a chance of making it worth it to them.
|
On November 07 2023 09:16 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2023 08:47 CicadaSC wrote:On November 07 2023 08:21 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 07 2023 06:28 Waxangel wrote:On November 07 2023 05:40 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 07 2023 05:12 Kreuger wrote:
Blizzard might not have the inclination to invest more, but microsoft might as we can se with AoE2. have no idea if it will happen or not, but Im slightly more optimistic with MS in "charge" AoE2 is getting additional development because AoE2 introduces new DLC with new civs every so often that very much follows the "power creep, and overpowered on release to get people to buy them, nerf them later once they've been out for a bit" model that MoBAs use. Now if someone wants to make a case for why that would be a good thing to add to Starcraft 2, I'd love to hear it. Keep in mind they're able to do this because AoE2 has a very different fundamental model from Starcraft 2 or Warcraft 3 where all of the factions are fundamentally the same at the base level but with some minor differences in terms of stat values, available technologies, unit stats etc. The only truly unique thing about each civ is their unique unit(s), and even there not every civ has a unique unit as powerful as other civs do. I personally don't see how a similar sort of model would ever work in a game like SC2 where all of the races are fundamentally different from each other, and even if a model like that COULD be implemented I don't think it would be good for the game to continue adding new match ups that need to then be calibrated and balanced long term. I mean, the model was in place with co-op commanders, but even that got canned because Acti-Blizz was not interested in making a little side money off of niche products. That's the kind of thing you hope changes going forward with MS—let good enough be good enough. The ship has definitely sailed with SC2 tho. That does seem to be the case, where there was SOME money to be made in SC2 selling skins, Co Op commanders and such, but it just wasn't the kind of insane money that could be made off of say Hearthstone packs or whatever exploitive model that Diablo Immortal uses. Which is why I am convinced that Blizzard is not going to return to the RTS market. EVER. You can't make that kind of money long term off of the RTS market the way you can off of things like mobile games, or all of the zillion ways that World of Warcraft is monetized. If someone wants to pitch me an RTS style game that can make that kind of money, that I would actually WANT to play, please enlighten me because I just don't see it happening. If Blizzard isn't interested in making just "enough" money off of a product, and is now only interested in the mega lucrative models then they aren't going to return to RTS games. If they did it would be like a Starcraft Mobile "Clash of Clans" style game that everybody would hate. If monetization model is your primary concern there are plenty of ways to be exploitative with primarily cosmetic inventories. Simply do a battle pass, where you can obtain seasonal items, do randomized shops, where only certain items appear in your store at a time, and do night market, where every week or so random cosmetics are thrown into there at a discounted price and it's different for each person. Basically just copy what Valorant does they don't sell power or cards or any of that bullcrap hearthstone or Diablo immortal do and it's still lucrative. SC2 had microtransactions but it was very basic. And you'd just be selling cosmetics in there? I don't think there's that much demand for cosmetics in an RTS since you spend so little time actually looking at any one thing. Putting skins on your heroes, characters or guns is one thing because they are the only thing anyone is looking at but in an RTS your eyes are on 10 things at once, there's nowhere near as much incentive to customize any of it with cosmetics.
I guess it would work better in Warcraft 4 where you actually would have hero units. You could also pay to unlock more heroes just like in MOBAs, balance would be a nightmare but pro players would have every hero unlocked anyways.
|
I would pay good money to finally get starcraft ghost or something similar, and I could see Microsoft attempting it.
You could even have some sort of crazy hybrid game: hack and slash zealot, fps terran, alien vs predator Z
Actually as I said a few month ago, alien vs predator was amazing for the blend of the styles in the campaign and the multiplayer was wild
|
8751 Posts
|
Agree with this take, it's just too little too late at this point. Honestly wouldn't even want a SC3, would rather any meager resources just be dedicated to this game. Same thing with hots, don't even need new stuff, just some bi annual balance patches or something, just little quality of life stuff.
But yea, not gonna happen, I'm glad the balance council is even trying.
|
I don't think there will ever be a SC3 but rather a new IP with RTS elemtens because this way they have way more freedom in development, balancing, story and even ways to make money of off. And it would always be compared to BW and SC2 and probably shitted on as a result. There is no winning there.
Take some elements out of all the successful games and mash it together in a new IP. RTS, Heroes, Moba elements and some hacking & slaying and voila. Skins, battle passes or, my personal favorite, a cheater free P2P (or earn 2 play) ladder
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
