Prediction: FG Shuts Down Before Full Release

[sweetbabyra]

Title.

FG will see a continually dwindling player base as overall their dev team seems to be really out of touch with what most players here have said they and within 12-18 months we will see the 'with reluctant hearts we must close the servers due to lack of funding'.

Only an old guard of Artosis and Tasteless fans seems to actually be listened to, along with some select SC2 pros; and none of the greater player base.

Negative posts outnumber good ones 3:1 here, and on reddit. But FG won't take a hint

This thing is dead on arrival. Quite simply modern RTS fans do not want a game that is fundamentally the same as one from 12 years ago.

[Hedonist]

Isn't that these kind of games "getting funded and asking for money first" always ending up bad and / or unfinished?

[KamelittaOida]

Първоначално публикувано от Hedonist:

Isn't that these kind of games "getting funded and asking for money first" always ending up bad and / or unfinished?

yes, it's because it's the manager who wants to open the restaurant and not the cook.

[[B- 178] Klank]

Първоначално публикувано от Hedonist:

Isn't that these kind of games "getting funded and asking for money first" always ending up bad and / or unfinished?

There are good and bad cases. I participated to Battle Chaser's kickstater back in the day and I got my worth out of it, a really decent game that gave AirShip Syndicate good bases to evolve today.
Same goes for Baldur's Gate 3, we must not forget that Larian's first game was made out of a Kickstarter, and they had way less to show for it than FG has today, then with excellent itterations over time they made one of the most complete and respectable game of all time.

That aside, bad cases get way more attention and are probably way more numerous, and if I have to be perfectly honest, nowadays even "triple A" games can look like unfinished pieces of sh*t with their most developped feature being their cashshop so it's not like other methods of funding are automatically giving better results :T

[valiant43e]

Първоначално публикувано от B- 178 Klank:

Same goes for Baldur's Gate 3, we must not forget that Larian's first game was made out of a Kickstarter, and they had way less to show for it than FG has today, then with excellent itterations over time they made one of the most complete and respectable game of all time.

Larian's Studio 1st game was The L.E.D. Wars in 1997 ("The Lady, the Mage and the Knight" was cancelled).
It wasn't kickstarted as far as I know.

Larian Studio succeeded with Baldur's Gate 3 because :
- they had a ton of experience
- their CEO had a proper vision
- their model is different from most developers as they don't have shareholders unlike most companies (well, almost no shareholders)

[Maraxus]

Yeah comparing SG to BG3 is unfair, BG3 was Larian's 3rd game as an independent studio and their previous 2 were already already commercially and critically successful.

[G0ll0]

Първоначално публикувано от Reva:

Първоначално публикувано от KrO:

If we are going to put Manor Lords and Frostpunk into the same discussion as Stormgate/StarCraft/AOE etc then I am going to put Dota and LoL in also, and they are still two of the most played games around and multiplayer only.

Honestly I am disappointed no Korea devs came out with a successor to StarCraft as it was so huge there. I guess the theory on them being good at grinding but not so creative holds true once again.. Still I have a lot of indie RTS on wish list (also Manor Lords but it's more of a city builder/sim game to me): Broken Arrow, Tempest Rising, Men of War 2, D.O.R.F. and ZeroSpace. All will probably have quite small playerbases but that's ok.

This! There are people who wants a 1vs1 competitive RTS, but the thing is some of them mentioning SC2, AoE 4 or SG is too fast. Okay, but we got so many slow RTS-Games in the past and they all died out. Like Grey Goo for example, nobody played again and this was really casual friendy and slow. So what this players wants is another casualfriendly slow rts with no playerbase. Makes no sense to me. There must be a reason people still playing SC, SC2, WC3, AoE2, AoE4, but none of the other RTS games in multiplayer 1vs1.
If players just here for the campaign and coop like frostpunk etc. they should play even more SG, because even if SG will have a competitive scene in 1vs1, it doesn't effects the whole game all. But seems like people like to ♥♥♥♥♥ about e-sports/competitive gameplay at the first place here.

And RTS is not about fast or slow, and RTS us about being fun, cool units, deep strategy layer, good game play, good UI, when you create and RTS for the "eSports" audience you will start chopping mechanics and stuff yo please the 1% of player base... A good example of removing fun for the sake of Koreans:

Protos mothership black hole... Was the most cool unit ability in SC2, removed for eSports reasons...

[jonoliveira12]

Първоначално публикувано от Hedonist:

Isn't that these kind of games "getting funded and asking for money first" always ending up bad and / or unfinished?

Not at all. Owlcat has a record of broken releases, but stellar end producst a year after, and they do crowdfunding a lot.

It depends on which crowd the devs listen to. Esports is not the future of RTS, it is the past.

[jonoliveira12]

Първоначално публикувано от Reva:

Първоначално публикувано от generaldova:

i think they lied about the game mostly being ready. like the hype train for this one is dying out already. if its mostly done than release what you have already. they do seem like they are going to go under already from what i can see it inst looking good. its sad .also i hate hardcore rts. if its too hard im not going to play it if it requires absurd apm to be any good im not playing it i think them dubing down rts to be easyer is a good thing the top 1% need to stop complaining that its too easy.

Nobody was or is really hyped fo SG or any other RTS anymore this days. Name me on RTS people are hyped about. There is none. In the Video Grubby already said why, but that doesn't means SG has no chance to become a good competetive game in 1vs1.
Also the game is in close Beta right now. Me for myself taking a break from the game actually, because....

1. There is no 3. Race
2. It needs more Improvements and Balancing
3. Pathfinding needs to get be better
etc. etc.

All other than i propably come back at early access or release.
Right now i enjoy AoE4 again. A Game i haven't touched for 1 1/2 year after release and i just think it's great actually. A aame also people called a dead mobile game, but seriouse i'm getting Matches in 1vs1 in basically 30 seconds right now. Remember at release of AoE 4 it took 3-4 Minutes. I'm happy suprised how well AoE 4 aged.

Tempest Rising.
Godsworn.
Age of Mythology: Retold.
Beyond All Reason.

Plenty of hype behind these games, only Esports competibros are not hyped about them, but the casual crowd certainly is.

[nallepuh]

Първоначално публикувано от jonoliveira12:

Първоначално публикувано от Reva:

Nobody was or is really hyped fo SG or any other RTS anymore this days. Name me on RTS people are hyped about. There is none. In the Video Grubby already said why, but that doesn't means SG has no chance to become a good competetive game in 1vs1.
Also the game is in close Beta right now. Me for myself taking a break from the game actually, because....

1. There is no 3. Race
2. It needs more Improvements and Balancing
3. Pathfinding needs to get be better
etc. etc.

All other than i propably come back at early access or release.
Right now i enjoy AoE4 again. A Game i haven't touched for 1 1/2 year after release and i just think it's great actually. A aame also people called a dead mobile game, but seriouse i'm getting Matches in 1vs1 in basically 30 seconds right now. Remember at release of AoE 4 it took 3-4 Minutes. I'm happy suprised how well AoE 4 aged.

Tempest Rising.
Godsworn.
Age of Mythology: Retold.
Beyond All Reason.

Plenty of hype behind these games, only Esports competibros are not hyped about them, but the casual crowd certainly is.

Stormgate is more wishlisted compared to these other games. So looks like casual crowd agrees with esporters.

[KamelittaOida]

Първоначално публикувано от nallepuh:

Първоначално публикувано от jonoliveira12:

Tempest Rising.
Godsworn.
Age of Mythology: Retold.
Beyond All Reason.

Plenty of hype behind these games, only Esports competibros are not hyped about them, but the casual crowd certainly is.

Stormgate is more wishlisted compared to these other games. So looks like casual crowd agrees with esporters.

cause FG is on twitter hyping it up like Overwatch while barely past the alpha stage.

no hate, just observation

[Antpile]

Първоначално публикувано от TsudaTumiko:

And RTS is not about fast or slow, and RTS us about being fun, cool units, deep strategy layer, good game play, good UI, when you create and RTS for the "eSports" audience you will start chopping mechanics and stuff yo please the 1% of player base... A good example of removing fun for the sake of Koreans:

Protos mothership black hole... Was the most cool unit ability in SC2, removed for eSports reasons...

Uh, no. This is a massively deluded take. RTS games have NEVER been about the co-op or any other form of PvE. They can have a good campaign, but even that is not completely necessary and far far less important than a healthy competitive multiplayer scene.

There are certain game genres that live or die almost entirely by their competitive multiplayer. MOBA. FPS. Fighting games. And most certainly, RTS.

Think of the most popular FPS games on the planet. Fortnite. CSGO. Any of the million Call of Duties. Battlefield whatever. Valorant. PUBG. What do they all have in common? Now name a single successful MOBA that doesn't have a booming esports scene.

Now do the same for RTS. The most played RTS games on the planet are the Starcrafts, AoE 2, AoE 4, the Company of Heroes games maybe. Again, all of these are still played to this day ONLY because of the competitive multiplayer. Starcraft 2 had the best single player campaign in the history of RTS, but there aren't still 10s of thousands of people playing it to this day because of the campaign.

The only instance of successful RTS games I can think of that were successful because of the story and campaign, rather than the competitive scene, are the Homeworlds. Still, the success of those games vastly pales in comparison to those RTS games that have esports scenes and are still played to this day.

TLDR: You couldn't be more wrong, my dude. If this game fails to create a successful and healthy esports scene... THAT will be the death of it.

[Nico]

Първоначално публикувано от Antpile:

Uh, no. This is a massively deluded take. RTS games have NEVER been about the co-op or any other form of PvE. They can have a good campaign, but even that is not completely necessary and far far less important than a healthy competitive multiplayer scene.

Just as a small hint: According to Blizzard, 80% of their playerbase of SC2 never even touched the competitive multiplayer and only played campaign and Coop.

[Flavalicious]

I dislike the hyper monetisation strategy. Game is being made by a company thats packed full of very successful, very well known people in the industry. The game is funded but they do a kickstarter to make more money to "flush out the details". And then they launch some odd ball, out of left field investment option where you can buy into as a player and possible earn back money from the success of the game....Without the use, benefits or security of just trading in company stock options. As far as investment options goes this is horrid, no person in their right mind should hand over any amount of money with the information that is available.

And then its free to play? Why. lol. WHY? Are you Fortnite? Is your target demographic for this fictional RTS video game a bunch of 12 year old kids? No? Then what does launching the game as free to play and packed with crappy micro-transactions doing for you other then drawing parallels between this new company and everything that people hate about modern day blizzard. I can't even name the last F2P game that actually got off the ground and survived since Covid wrapped up. Everything I've enjoyed playing over the last year is around $30, and was an easy, risk and guilt free purchase.

Its just a bit fooking weird man. Why didn't these guys just secure funding and release a solid, well made RTS as the start of a much larger vision. Why we up in here trying to raise bank loads of cash to support the ultimate video game in this genre without it hitting the market first and seeing if it catches on or not. Like what part of ANY of this is even remotely relative to the Blizzard of old and how they used to conduct themselves (which is what this company is claiming to be in spirit).

Step 1. Make a good video game
Step 2. See if it catches on and goes viral
Step 3. Ramp up funding to support the tournament scene and fund the future of the franchise.

You don't skip 1-2 and put all your focus on 3. lol

I hope it pans out, I'm down for a solid SC2 clone, but when I compare this to something like Tempest Rising, it doesn't fill me with much hope.

[KamelittaOida]

Първоначално публикувано от Flavalicious:

....
Step 1. Make a good video game
Step 2. See if it catches on and goes viral
Step 3. Ramp up funding to support the tournament scene and fund the future of the franchise.

You don't skip 1-2 and put all your focus on 3. lol

basically that. What I tried to imply above with Overwatch. They created leagues and a competitive scene before there was even any audience for it. Not only that they also imposed some type of league system with minimum requirements of sorts, like a franchise.

You cannot force live-service. I can't believe how lucky that clown Sweeney got with Fortnite, given that it started out like this co-op shooter.

[Flavalicious]

Първоначално публикувано от Kern:

Първоначално публикувано от Antpile:

Uh, no. This is a massively deluded take. RTS games have NEVER been about the co-op or any other form of PvE. They can have a good campaign, but even that is not completely necessary and far far less important than a healthy competitive multiplayer scene[...]

You can't get it any more wrong than that.
War3 only worked on the campaign and on custom games (multi chill). The campaign was such a success that Arthas alone was a selling point for 12 million WoW subscribers. War3 was the precursor to Dota. Nobody care about the e sport from War3.
SC2 worked essentially on the campaign and co-op mode. 80% of players never played competitive multiplayer. Yes, there was an e-sports scene that made money, particularly in Korea, but it's extremely minor compared to the amount of money they made on co-op mode.
AoE2 DE has worked mainly because it has an incredible mass of campaigns to offer. AoE4 followed on from the craze created by AoE2DE. The e sport followers is really tiny compared to the amount of player.

The reality is that the best RTS games also happen to have an E-sports scene, but this scene has contributed absolutely nothing to their success. You need to know the numbers a little better, clearly the success of an RTS comes from a good campaign and various chill modes, whether single-player or multiplayer.

While i agree in overall take..... The esports competitive side of those RTS games definitely draw in new gamers from viewers and play a larger role then I think your giving credit to. LOTS of people love watching those pro level games even if they don't play themselves. Modern AoE2 popularity exists almost solely because the pro scene drawing in fresh blood. Those new players won't play hundreds of ranked games, but they know about the game, and play the game because of what they've seen on YT or streams. If people were just in it for the campaign/comp stomps, there is 0 reason they wouldn't just play AoE4. You have to follow the pro tournament scene to even be aware of the opinion that 2 is still the best game in the franchise.

I'd also like to know if that 80% SC2 statistic is BEFORE or AFTER they made the game free. Because if it was after, that makes total sense and won't surprise me at all, but I don't know a single friend in my circle (all grew up playing Blizz games) who hasn't done ranked games after buying the game on launch. Its possible that bias reporting is the explanation for this, but its a pretty big circle of friends who played, so im hesitant to credit it to that.