I think Mitoe needs to put a little more thought in his arguments. I donât feel like the case he is making is well supported by his arguments, which are anecdotal at best.
Mitoe identifies the problem that RTS games canât keep up with modern gaming. He hypothesizes that the fact that RTS games focus on 1v1 is the reason why they canât keep up with modern gaming. He provides the following arguments:
1. In the past it used to be logical for games to focus on 1v1 due to the smaller amount of players
2. Nowadays games are a social experience. Just look at mobas or battle royale games.
I find these arguments to be rather poor. The first argument isnât a core part of Mitoeâs case, but I do see some problems. We need to consider the effect that an increase in players can be offset by an increase in games. I collected some interesting data: In 2015, 2708 games were released on steam. In 2019 8290 games were released on steam.[1] This is an increase of more than 300%. Meanwhile, the amount of gamers increased by 130% in the same time period.[2] For this time period, one could make the same argument that you made in favor of team based games, but if you look at the amount of games that are being released it might actually be the case that the average amount of players per game is decreasing (we have to take into account though that steam as a platform is growing too). Itâs hard to definitively say this is the case, but I think itâs easy to see that your case isnât as clear as you make it out to be.
Furthermore, I want to point out that you are underestimating the amount of gamers between â00 and â10. I couldnât find raw numbers for these eras, but if we look at the amount of consoles sold we find that 171 million PS3s (released in 2006) and Xbox 360âs (released in 2005) were sold, compared to an estimated 162 million PS4s (released in 2013) and Xbox oneâs (released in 2013).[3] It seems like itâs incorrect to simply make the assumptions that you are making. Even looking at anecdotal evidence, it is true that battle royale games and MOBAs are gigantic nowadays, but so were games like runescape and world of warcraft. In 2008 WoW had a whopping 12 million subscriptions.[4] I think that there wasnât necessarily a need to focus on 1v1 modes due to the lower amount of players. I certainly canât find accurate numbers that support your argument here.
The most convincing numbers that I could find are the value of the video game industry. This is probably a reasonable projection of the size of the video game industry. If we look at the graph below, you can see that the size of the video game industry minus the mobile games (which are arguably not something worth considering for this argument) did not increase that much (the numbers are also not adjusted for inflation).[5] Based on this I do see a slight increase in PC gamers compared to the amount of console gamers, but I donât think these numbers really support your case. If the amount of gamers was a limitation for making team based games (like 5v5 games) and thus forced developers to focus on 1v1 games, we would expect that an extreme shift of focus towards team games would be caused by a very large increase in the amount of gamers. We actually donât see this huge increase. It could be that there was a very large increase in the amount of gamers that had internet access, but I canât find numbers supporting this. I would be interested in any numbers that might more thoroughly show the development of the gaming community.
I want to move on and focus on your second argument. You make the assumption that nowadays games are a very social experience for most people. I cannot find justification for this assumption. More importantly, even if a large number of people prefer the social aspects of gaming, that does not mean that there isnât opportunity for 1v1 games or single player games to still do well. You make the assumption that because most people prefer a certain thing, that anything that isnât that thing canât compete. We could actually apply your logic to actual sports: Nowadays, for most people sports are a very social experience. Sports like soccer, basketball, baseball and football all focus on team play and playing with your friends. 1v1 sports like tennis canât keep up with these sports, so they need to focus more on the team elements. The reality is that sports like tennis are doing just fine, because there is plenty of demand for individual sports. Similarly, I would argue that single player and 1v1 games are doing fine, which means that there is plenty of demand for these games.
Letâs also look at some facts and figures. Looking at what games won game of the year in the past decade, we find that from 2010 to 2019 we had 9 single player games win (RDR, Skyrim, the walking dead, GTA5, dragon age inquisition, the witcher 3, Zelda breath of the wild, god of war and sekiro) and 1 multiplayer team based game (overwatch).[6] We could argue that games like these are released more frequently as the lack of multiplayer components reduce their longevity and replayability. I think that is a fair point to make, but I would argue that this still proves that games can do fine without focusing on the social aspects of gaming. The witcher 3 sold 28 million copies, which is very respectable.[7] There are also 1v1 games that are successful. One good example is hearthstone, which is an extremely successful online game that is almost exclusively played as a 1v1. In the recent years auto-battlers have been on the rise, which are rarely played as a team. Sports games like Fifa are also almost exclusively 1v1, and these games are huge.
It is also important to realize that a percentage of players in team-based games is actually solo-queuing (I canât actually find numbers for this though). We have to wonder to what extend the team aspects of successful team games is actually crucial to their success. More specifically: how important is the social aspect of games to the success of those games? I think that it is very important to a part of the players, but some players might not care as much.
Overall I think it is pretty clear that there is a market for games that do not have the social aspect. This is reinforced by the success of single player games and some 1v1 multiplayer games. Furthermore, while team games are currently successful, it is unclear how important the social aspect of these games is to their success.
I think itâs also important to realize that a game does not need to follow the trend to be successful. Even if there is more demand for team based multiplayer, that does not exclude other games from being successful. The only important thing is that there is enough demand for such a game. When it comes to single player games, there is clearly enough demand for these games to sell well. When it comes to 1v1 games, I think there is also evidence that suggests there is demand for games like this.
I think you incorrectly assume that focusing on the team aspect will make RTS games âkeep upâ. You do not actually provide reasoning for this and I donât think it is reasonable to simply assume this to be the case. In making RTS games focus more on team games, you move them towards a rather crowded niche. While the demand for games like this might be larger, it can also be the case that the supply of these games is larger. It might very well be that while the demand for 1v1 is lower, there is also less supply. If that is the case, then focusing on 1v1 would actually be a smarter choice. Especially MOBAs are already rather similar to strategy games. Moving towards the MOBA spectrum of gameplay could increase the competition from these games. Why play a team-based RTS when you can play one of the MOBAs, which are basically tailored towards team-based gameplay? Intrinsically speaking, RTS games do not have that many qualities that would make them shine in a team game format. In the current form of RTS, there isnât actually that much direct cooperation. In MOBAs you need to very carefully synchronize movement and ability usage, which are arguably aspects that really improve the experience of the team games. RTS games donât intrinsically have these gameplay elements. I am not very confident in their ability to compete with these MOBAs.
Underlying your post is also an assumption that I donât think is necessarily correct. In stating that RTS games need to focus on team aspects to keep up with modern gaming, you assume that it is necessary for these games to keep up. I donât actually think this is true. RTS games donât have to be as successful as league of legends or Dota to be worth playing or making. Itâs nice if the online community is healthy so that you can get games rather quickly, but it doesnât have to have millions of concurrent players for that. Itâs nice to see the competitive scene of a game get a ton of support, but it is not necessary for the game to be enjoyable to players. There is essentially no need for the RTS niche to regain its spot as the biggest online gaming genre. From my personal point of view, I would rather see developers focus on what makes RTS games good (which includes a focus on the 1v1 gameplay) and produce a good RTS game, than see developers try to compete with League of Legends by turning their RTS game into a team game. While there are definitely some benefits to âRTS games keeping up with modern gamingâ, I donât think itâs necessary for the survival of the genre and I also donât necessarily think itâs desirable to shift focus away from what made RTS games great in the first place.
Sources:
[1] -
https://www.pcgamesn.com/steam/games-released-in-2019
[2] -
https://www.statista.com/statistics/748 ... ers-world/
[3] -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_b ... e_consoles
[4] -
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/2356984-WoW-s-peak
[5] -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_industry#2010s
[6] -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_G ... ear_awards
[7] -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher_3:_Wild_Hunt
Properly assessing what led to the decline of RTS games, and to what extend the RTS genre has a future, is a complicated task. It is a far more complicated problem than you make it out to be though. I will provide a few considerations I have.
I could see the decline of the RTS genre be related to the technical side of making games. The isometric sprite based view is generally pretty easy to make. In single player games we see a much bigger increase in graphical quality than we see for RTS games (and isometric games in general). One of the qualities of gaming is that it can offer you a unique but immersive experience and this is greatly improved by the increased graphical qualities. From a more technical point of view, I believe that RTS games are more severely limited by the CPU (an area in which relatively little progress is being made) compared to first or third person games which are more limited by the GPU (an area where there is still a ton of progress). Before the rise of RTS games, point and click adventure games and platformers were some of the biggest genres. This could arguably have been because these sort of games are even easier to make and easier to run. This of course cannot explain the rise of MOBAs, but I can see how this contributes to the market shifting away from RTS games.
I also think that there is a larger market for team games. In part this is probably because of the social aspect (although for many this could also be a detriment), but I also think that competitive team games make dealing with losses easier. Losing in 1v1 can really hurt; you canât easily find excuses and almost have to blame yourself. In team games (or team sports) you can also put the blame on teammates. Itâs not all your fault, and for many people thatâs easier to process.
I think the difficulty of RTS games is a valid problem too. These games are chaotic and stressful. In a MOBA you are in control of only one character. Itâs still hard to learn and hard to master, but itâs not as chaotic. In shooters you âsimplyâ aim and shoot and occasionally use that ability. On a basic levels, these games are simple and let you be in control. RTS games are pure chaos compared to this, and it takes a long time for you to master this chaos and regain control. For me a game like starcraft is very stressful, and I need to take frequent breaks to even bear playing the game. Meanwhile I can easily grind overwatch.
Maybe a related problem is that RTS games donât necessarily give that instant reward. Games are more about attrition, about slowly outplaying your opponents. Games like overwatch or LoL have these instant rewards, these moments of pure dopamine. That feeling when you start popping off is so amazing. Getting that kill gives so much excitement. I think RTS games struggle to generate this sort of excitement. I really like the strategic and grindy aspects, but these are mostly relevant at a very high level. At a lower level I think RTS games can be very stressful for very little reward.
Should we actually solve these problems? I am inclined to answer no. I think itâs okay for a game to cater towards a specific niche. The RTS market is currently pretty small, and I actually think there is a reasonable amount of demand for RTS games. If you look at how big sc2 still is, and how many people are actually interested in aoe2 and even aoe3 (even my non-gamer friends are aware of aoe4), I think that there is room for new RTS games. The fact that aoe4 is in development and that former Blizzard employees started Frost Giant studios, which raised 4.7 million to produce a new RTS game, implies that companies also believe there is a market for RTS games. I donât think the RTS genre needs to reinvent itself to continue to exist. It will probably not become the primary gaming genre again, but I think we will be enjoying RTS games for a very long time.