Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Blizzard is getting a lot of vitriol and I don’t think it’s unwarranted. Yes, some of it might be melodramatic but I remember when Warcraft 3 was coming out. Or even Lord of the Clans. People were mega hyped.
This is a huge turn of the tide. Very little of the core fan base, if they even still have that, is interested. Both Diablo 5 and StarCraft 3 getting panned. Very strange of Blizzard to do this, especially as a fuck-you to people who bought Diablo 4 and now there’s no Diablo in it, unless they release a surprise expansion pack which would just be weird.
As for the trailer, it looks like a grimdark Warhammer 40K thing. I don’t know why they are releasing trailers so early. I’m guessing they’ll spend the next 3-4 years in constant marketing mode to drum up sales?
I don’t even get this company anymore. Who the fuck is in charge around here? And where’s our air support?
by gleezard - Even a half hearted RTS would be better recived, how can they not know that?by ZiiS
- Financially incorrect, it seems.by jayd16
- There is no one left at Blizzard with any RTS experience. They've long since left for smaller studios.
SC2 is my favorite game of all time and I would love nothing more than an SC3. But if there ever is to be a real spiritual successor it won't be from Blizzard.
by mikenew - An RTS game would generate lower revenue but higher profits. Low risk but low reward.
A shooter is a high risk high-reward endeavor. The track record for shooters for the past 5 years is actually much worse than it has been for RTS games, but the ceiling for success is much higher. In 2026 alone, several AAA shooters have failed in the market. Most of the shooters released in the past 2 years have failed to survive. The few that succeeded made a lot of money.
by gamblor956 - StarCraft 2 is really hard to beat.
This is probably the safest thing they could do with the genre from a business perspective.
by bob1029 - Couldn't be more wrong. The market for new RTSs is too tiny and saturated to turn a profit on any new IP. The small existing player base is too entrenched to move away from the old established IPs that are still popular to something new and unproven.
- I've heard this story before, and from the same people... no thanks.by biglyburrito
- is this “Helldivers 2”, but StarCraft?by whicks
- Helldivers 2 isn't open-world, so probably not.by geoffpado
- we are definitely getting AGI before a new starcraftby joshu
- Release dates is why Rust implemented the Never type https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49625056by blueoranges
- And a Diablo 5 in 2029? https://youtu.be/GxCN_AKYtts?is=AgY1pqrkutISphr1by jzig
- Wasn't this starcraft ghost?by htrp
- Kind of. That one was closer to C&C Renegade.by Waterluvian
- I was wondering what do they exactly mean by "open-world shooter", and checked that Dan Hay guy:
> Executive Producer on Far Cry 5
So it's safe to assume that's what they are aiming for.
- RTS games are a niche now so this makes total sense. No one has time for them esp on competitive scene where the older games perfectly capture what audience exists.
Games these days need to have an almost hard cap on a “round” or session wrt to time. I need to know that the game will be over within x minutes’ish. The attention span is small. Almost all indie games have adopted this structure.
What fans really want is NOT another competitive rts but more campaigns and coop. Neither will convinced execs to dump cash into it unless it is a live service game with dlcs. Sc2 did this for a bit with a coop mode that did ok but not ok enough to continue.
by rustystump - There must be more money in competitive play though. Not as much recently, but I remember a trend some years back of throwing even a large casual player base under the bus to cater to the competitive multiplayer scene.
One of the theories for part of the Civ6 flop is that they wanted to cater to multiplayer scenes which have different concerns from a casual single player. Removing hotseat is extremely egregious though and the one reason I’ve refused to give the game a chance. I’d be willing to look past the “Humankind ripoff lol” memes if I could play with my gf.
by gamessucknow - « as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced »by poulpy123
- I have absolutely no faith in Microsoft to make anything decent with its legacy IPs.
Ohh well
by 999900000999 - Meanwhile, Nintendo with a tiny fraction of MS market cap is absolutely killing it with their legacy IP.by pokstad
- They just abandon the entire RTS fan base. This feels just like the diablo immortal announcement disaster where they announce a product that is completely outside the target audience.
I hope it's good, but it's really disappointing to not just have starcraft 3. Instead we get diablo 5? I wish I could feel positive about any of the blizzcon announcements, but it all feels like an out of touch joke.
by Setheck - Making an rts in 2026. They are not a charity my guy. If you must capitalize on nostalgia you are better off making an mmo.
That said i do not trust blizzard to make anything that isnt lame and slop.
by m4xp - They literally released a 30 hour Warcraft campaign yesterday.by TiredOfLife
- What would be the point in making SC3? SC2 is free to play, great game, and still barely gets any players. I play against the same 30-40 people every time in ranked.by FanaHOVA
- > They just abandon the entire RTS fan base
They did announce a new Warcraft 3 expansion at Blizzcon too.
by nozzlegear - > They just abandon the entire RTS fan base
A full warcraft III expansion is not nothing
by swiftcoder - RTS is pretty much a dead genre these days. There have been indie releases but nothing did well enough for a big studio to take notice. They tested the water with a Command and Conquer remaster a few years ago too.by jm4