RTS Games: Is There a Future? With Perafilozof (Ep.74)

Tim and Al welcome Peter from the Perafilozof YouTube channel to examine the future of real-time strategy gaming.

https://criticalmovespodcast.com/listen

The conversation tackles RTS development’s fundamental challenge: money. Publishers don’t trust the genre to be profitable despite a wave of indie titles in development. Peter lists over a dozen upcoming games including Global Configuration, Dustfront, Dwarf, Sanctuary: Shattered Sun, Ashes of the Singularity 2, Zero Space, and Hyperwar. The hosts debate whether the genre needs one breakthrough hit to open funding floodgates. Peter reveals that 76% of RTS players prefer single player campaigns, but single player costs significantly more to develop than multiplayer due to voice actors, writers, cinematics, and production crews. The discussion examines why audiences and developers both cling to old franchises rather than embracing new IPs. Dawn of War 4 emerges as a potential watershed moment for mainstream RTS return, though Peter remains sceptical about the developer change and marketing approach. The conversation covers Command and Conquer Generals 2’s cancellation as EA’s betrayal of the community, cross-genre experimentation as the path forward, and what developers should build more of including co-op modes, social features, customization systems, and sandbox modes that let player imagination create new subgenres.

Critical Moves Podcast – Episode 74 Show Notes

Episode Title: The Future of RTS Games – Money, Innovation, and the Need for One Big Hit
Hosts: Tim, Al
Guest: Peter https://www.youtube.com/@perafilozof/videos
Episode Length: ~57 minutes

Episode Summary

This episode brings together Tim, Al, and Peter from the Perafilozof YouTube channel to examine the future of real-time strategy gaming. Peter has covered RTS games for over a decade after starting with Total War: Shogun 2 multiplayer commentaries. The discussion begins with Peter’s stark assessment that money is the only word that matters when discussing RTS’s future. Publishers and investors don’t trust the genre to be profitable compared to other genres, making funding incredibly difficult to secure.

Peter lists over a dozen upcoming RTS titles currently in development. Global Configuration and Dustfront should release in 2026. Dwarf, Sanctuary: Shattered Sun, and Immortal: Gates of Pyre face years of additional development. Ashes of the Singularity 2 may arrive late 2026 or early 2027. Zero Space enters early access in 2026. The sheer number of games in development provides reason for optimism, but long development cycles and audience fatigue create serious concerns. Developers wearing 10-15 hats simultaneously take decades to finish games. Audiences cool off when titles take five years with minimal content updates.

The hosts debate whether RTS needs one breakthrough hit to revive mainstream interest. Tim draws parallels to Elden Ring’s impact on Souls-likes and MOBA’s creation from Warcraft 3 custom maps. Developers view each other as collaborators rather than competitors because the entire genre benefits when individual titles succeed. However, Ben Angell’s recent appearance on the show identified a troubling pattern where new RTS games simply clone Command and Conquer, StarCraft, Warcraft 3, or Supreme Commander rather than innovating.

Single player versus multiplayer emerges as a critical tension. Peter’s audience polls consistently show 76% prefer single player campaigns. Research from years ago indicated 80% of RTS players consider themselves casual single player gamers. Despite this clear preference, single player costs significantly more to develop than multiplayer. Voice actors, writers, cinematic production, and FMV sequences require substantial budgets only profitable with large audiences. Multiplayer games find monetization paths and attract younger audiences playing free-to-play titles with friends. The older audience has more disposable income and will pay $60 for excellent single player experiences.

Creating compelling stories represents an art form more difficult than balancing competitive multiplayer. Character-driven campaigns with engaging narratives stick in player memory far longer than mechanical innovation. The most influential PC games in museums are those with great stories, amazing music, and memorable characters. Players remember Arthas killing his father in Warcraft 3’s throne room scene decades later. Red Alert and Command and Conquer characters remain iconic. Great storytelling creates lasting cultural impact beyond mechanical excellence.

Dawn of War 4 represents a potential watershed moment for mainstream RTS return. Peter remains skeptical despite the recognized IP and established publisher in Deep Silver. The developers changed from the original team. The game returns to Dawn of War 1’s design rather than creating something genuinely new. Marketing advertises it as the same game with improvements rather than a bold sequel. The vertical slice shown may not represent actual game state compared to Medieval 3’s alpha footage.

Command and Conquer Generals 2’s 2013 cancellation remains a painful betrayal for the community. EA started development with geopolitical thriller storylines and branching campaigns, then pivoted to free-to-play monetization that killed the project. The franchise died completely aside from the remastered collection and a mobile game. EA released the full source code, spawning community projects to remake portions of the game. Peter views this as zombification rather than revival. The audience needs to let go of 30-40 year old franchises and support developers making new games that could eventually surpass Command and Conquer’s legacy.

The episode concludes with Peter’s recommendations for developers. Build more co-op modes matching modern social media gaming habits. Integrate social features directly into games rather than forcing players to use Discord on second screens. Include challenges allowing players to post scores on social media and compete with friends. Implement meaningful progression, leveling systems, and extensive customization options. Create sandbox modes where players can build infinitely and test defenses. This kind of modability created Tower Defense and MOBA genres. The next RTS subgenre will emerge from player imagination given proper tools.

The Future of RTS: It All Comes Down to Money

Peter opens with uncomfortable honesty. The first and only word that truly matters for RTS’s future is money. He constantly faces developers with great ideas who cannot find funding. Publishers and investors don’t trust the genre to be profitable. Even when developers secure deals, the offers aren’t attractive enough for indie teams to accept.

The issue isn’t absolute funding amounts. Small indie teams of 10-12 people can survive on far less than AAA studios with 300 employees. The problem is that offers are rare because perceived RTS profits are low compared to other genres. Publishers view the risk-reward ratio as unfavorable.

Modern game development is more accessible than ever. Developers don’t need extensive technical knowledge. Online resources provide textures, assets, and tutorials. Many indie developers start as hobbyists, slowly transitioning to semi-professional work, then eventually abandoning day jobs to develop full-time.

Indie Developers and the Cost of Going Solo

Solo developers wear 10-15 hats simultaneously. They handle prototyping, marketing, quality control, video creation, trailer production, and content creation just to market their games. Fellow content creators and developers help reduce the burden, but the time cost remains enormous.

Games developed this way take a decade. During that time, developers remake engines, remodel assets, and potentially transfer to new engines entirely. Audiences cool off after waiting years without seeing release dates or substantial content. D.O.R.F exemplifies this problem. People were excited 2-3 years ago. Now enthusiasm has waned because no release date exists despite ongoing development.

Steam sees 25,000 new games per year. Expecting audiences to wait for one game while 100,000 games release over four years is unrealistic. Attention spans can’t sustain that kind of patience in the modern market.

Upcoming RTS Games to Watch

Peter prepared a comprehensive list of upcoming titles across various development stages:

2026 releases: Global Configuration (expected this year), Dustfront (probably this year but uncertain), Zero Space (early access this year)

2027-2028 releases: Ashes of the Singularity 2 (late 2026 or early 2027), Empire Eternal (maybe 2027), Hyperwar (probably 2027-2028), Defcon Zero: Front Lines of Tomorrow (maybe 2027, probably 2028)

Multi-year development: D.O.R.F (probably several years), Sanctuary: Shattered Sun (full release in several years), Immortal: Gates of Pyre (timeline completely uncertain due to team transition issues)

The sheer volume of games in development provides optimism. Falling Frontier’s development highlights typical delays. They posted a development update in 2023 announcing delays. The next post came two years later in November 2025 announcing further delays. The only certainty about RTS development is that games will be delayed.

Despite delays, 12-14 new titles represent cause for cheerfulness. The negatives exist, but the positives include a robust development pipeline that will eventually deliver new games.

Does the Genre Need One Big Breakthrough Title?

Developers don’t view each other as direct competition, especially within RTS as a subgenre. The community needs one big breakthrough game that attracts players from outside the existing RTS audience. Elden Ring opened the Souls-like genre to massive mainstream audiences. Everyone wanted to play similar games afterward. A similar RTS breakthrough could create snowball effects for other indie titles.

The Defcon Zero developers specifically stated they don’t view other RTS developers as competition. They want community effects where one game’s success helps all RTS games succeed. When people start playing RTS games generally, the entire genre benefits from increased audience engagement.

Is There Space for All These Games?

Comments reveal players are highly specific about preferences. Some say they like Age of Empires-like games or Command and Conquer-like games. Others specify exact gameplay combinations nobody has ever made, struggling to find even close approximations. A huge array of desired game types exists. The quality players expect simply exceeds what current funding, development time, and team sizes can produce.

Big content creators keep strategy gaming alive and vibrant. Competitive RTS streamers like Hera (Age of Empires) and Grubby (Warcraft 3) create gathering places for communities. When they cross over to try other RTS games and teach each other, significant audience movement follows. This crossover brings growth to newer titles when established streamers showcase them.

Innovation vs Imitation: Are New RTS Games Just Clones?

Last week’s innovation episode with Dr. Ben Angell addressed RTS specifically. He argued that new titles model themselves after Command and Conquer, StarCraft, Warcraft 3, and Supreme Commander. The genre has become siloed into these four templates without meaningful innovation beyond them.

Nuno’s recent article on strategywargaming.com discussed tactical duality. He identified two branches of RTS development: classic base builders and tactical games. The split creates distinct design philosophies rather than unified genre evolution.

Peter sees a split but not exactly this binary. Roughly 50% of new games chase the most famous franchises. The other 50% attempt innovation by mixing genres never combined before. While these experimental titles might lack polish and finish quality, somebody needs to try new ideas. Whole genres and subgenres can emerge from these attempts.

Developers mirror content creator behavior. They join each other’s Discord servers and discuss each other’s games. They’ve realized audiences don’t need to be exclusive. Audiences should be for the genre generally, jumping between games freely. This expands the total audience rather than fragmenting it into isolated communities.

Content creators face the same dynamic. Single-game Let’s Play series see dramatic viewership decline. The first episode gets 10,000 views, the second gets 1,000, the third gets 500. People jump from game to game rapidly. Content creators adapt by moving into different games and even different genres. RTS developers are learning the same lesson.

The Accessibility vs Complexity Tightrope

RTS occupies a delicate niche between accessibility and complexity. The genre easily evolves toward hardcore grand strategy (Paradox games) or toward highly accessible auto-battlers. RTS maintains a delicate balance between these extremes that easily gets lost.

Unnatural Worlds demonstrates crazy experimentation. The developer created Supreme Commander-style gameplay on planets shaped as anything except regular spheres. Donuts, squares, and triangles serve as planets. Players can circle around edges and attack opponents on opposite sides.

Space Reign combines half space FPS/third-person shooter (piloting your ship directly) with fleet RTS command. Players shoot directly while also leading fleets in RTS gameplay.

Project 37 is a solo-developed Command and Conquer-style game with special territory outlines. Specific buildings can only be constructed on certain territories. Players must capture other territories to access different building types.

Is Cross-Genre Experimentation the Future?

Someone commented on the Critical Moves YouTube channel expressing sadness that the base building genre was dead. The reality contradicts this perception. Many games are in development. The future lies in cross-pollination where RTS serves as the core with other game types integrated to improve the experience.

Roughly 50% of the audience wants the next Age of Empires, the next Command and Conquer, the next Supreme Commander. The other 50% is bored and tired of seeing the same games remade endlessly. They want something new, different, and previously unexperienced. The other 50% of developers are combining elements never combined before. These combinations might fail on first and second iterations, but someone else might refine the concept and polish it on the third attempt.

Godsworn exemplifies this refinement. The game looks like Warcraft 3 but doesn’t play exactly like Warcraft 3. Characters level up with very different spells and no inventory system. While reminiscent of Warcraft, it differs substantially. With more players and better marketing, it could become a major title.

The Importance of Prototyping Tools

Getting cross-pollination ideas working requires rapid testing. Ideas like “imagine Warcraft but with X” or “combine these two weird mechanics” proliferate. Some will be terrible, others will be amazing. Having tools to test these ideas quickly and get players trying them is incredibly important. Iterating early and getting community feedback prevents five-year projects discovering too late that core mechanics aren’t fun.

The golden age of RTS provided custom map editors enabling creativity and rapid testing. MOBA came from custom maps. Auto battlers emerged from Dota 2 custom maps, which themselves came from Warcraft 3 custom maps. Auto battlers literally originated as a custom game of a custom game.

Getting developers tools for easy early testing and rapid trial allows finding the most fun mechanics through community feedback rather than extended solo development. This trial-based discovery identifies what’s most enjoyable for the largest audiences.

Single Player vs Multiplayer: What Do Players Actually Want?

Years ago, research indicated 80% of RTS players consider themselves casual single player gamers. A month ago, Al posted a Reddit poll asking whether single player campaigns or multiplayer battles matter more. Over 1,000 respondents produced 76% preferring single player campaigns.

Peter’s own audience polls consistently show single player as most important. This preference emerges from multiple angles. Old games focused on single player because developed online services didn’t exist. Multiplayer wasn’t viable at scale. Those games sold based on excellent single player campaigns extended through expansion packs.

The last 20 years showed how internet development enabled multiplayer focus. An entire market for multiplayer-exclusive games now exists separate from traditional game markets. Indie developers know most sales come from single player preferences. However, single player ends up costing far more than multiplayer despite multiplayer’s technical complexity.

Single player requires paying voice actors, writers, cinematic movie production, or FMV sequences. Professional crews, stages, and production all cost substantial money. This investment only proves profitable with large audiences. Multiplayer games find monetization paths through the player base and earn revenue continually.

Younger audiences playing multiplayer do so because their friends play and connecting is easy. They lack disposable income for $60 purchases, preferring free-to-play multiplayer titles. Older audiences have more money and willingly pay $60 for excellent single player experiences.

Why Great Stories Are What People Remember

Creating really good stories and campaigns represents an art form more difficult than competitive balance. Making beautiful art requires subjective talent. Mass production is easier than creating something genuinely beautiful.

Multiplayer content is the other person placed in front of the player. Creating competitive environments requires well-balanced games and enjoyable skill ramps to learn. Story-driven campaigns that engage players and make them want to play one more mission with surprises and rooting interest are simply more difficult to execute well.

Self-delusion about storytelling ability happens easily. Some developers make stories that simply aren’t interesting without realizing it.

Walking through a PC games museum, the most influential titles are those with great stories, amazing experiences, and memorable music. This is all art. Players remember it most vividly. Ask RTS players about memorable characters and they mention Red Alert, Command and Conquer, or StarCraft. Rarely does anyone mention other characters.

One of RTS gaming’s biggest moments remains Arthas returning home from campaign in Warcraft 3. He enters the throne room. His father the king asks what he’s doing. Arthas responds, “Succeeding you, father,” and runs him through with Frostmourne. Everyone who played that campaign remembers this scene decades later.

Stories work like films. Watch a movie 30 years ago and specific scenes still stick in memory. Game scenes stick similarly. This is how brains are wired. Artistic games with great storytelling remain at the forefront of what’s considered best even when mechanically inferior. Story longevity exceeds mechanical longevity.

Peter expects Al will finally enjoy Beyond All Reason now that they’ve announced campaign development with lore. Getting invested in story and characters makes multiplayer easier to approach because players become invested in the universe. An Elder Scrolls RTS would sell better than anything on Steam regardless of quality just from the IP recognition.

Beyond All Reason’s Single Player Development

Tim confirms a team now works actively on Beyond All Reason’s single player campaign. It’s a big undertaking requiring substantial time. Development won’t finish soon, but active work is happening. There’s a lore master and lore already dropped. One day it will be playable, though 2036 might be optimistic.

The worst single player experiences function as vehicles for presenting skirmish mission series. That approach represents a bad way of doing things. Developers shouldn’t bother if that’s the intended single player experience.

Beyond All Reason’s multiplayer focus exists because many people enjoy the multiplayer and volunteer free time to improve it. Development naturally concentrates on multiplayer since that’s what drew people initially. Single player fans haven’t joined yet, so nobody prioritizes single player additions.

Now that Beyond All Reason has grown large enough with sufficient participation, active single player campaign development has begun. The delay represents a self-fulfilling prophecy. Multiplayer focus attracted multiplayer-focused developers who improved multiplayer further, continuing the cycle.

Game of Thrones RTS and the Power of Recognized IPs

Peter noticed Game of Thrones RTS a while back with its trailer and subsequent dev diary. Since then, minimal content has appeared. He fears this represents a vertical slice designed to generate wishlists. Developers may wait for target thresholds (100,000, 500,000, or one million wishlists) before greenlighting further development.

Game of Thrones provides an amazing RTS setting despite the terrible final season. The story, betrayal, and backstabbing would translate beautifully.

Other amazing IPs could become RTS games. The Elder Scrolls already inspired fans to create a mod for Battle for Middle Earth featuring the Oblivion faction. Many other story-rich IPs could work. No big company has invested large amounts into these opportunities.

The reason circles back to profits. Publishers see limited RTS profitability. They sell for $60, pay everyone involved in the chain, and net $20 profit per unit. They need to sell millions to recoup expensive IP licensing, voice actors, cinematics, and production costs while maintaining reasonable development timelines.

Looking at recent RTS releases, someone from the back of the room mentions StarCraft 2 from 2010. Publishers note the current year is 2026 and decide against investment. The gap between major successful releases is simply too large to inspire confidence.

The Difficulty of Combining Great Gameplay with Recognized IPs

Combining truly good, fun, original, innovative gameplay with enticing IPs proves difficult. Focus easily shifts to one or the other. Big name IP drops feel like cash grabs with half-developed games collecting money quickly. Amazing game designs with fun gameplay suffer from being entirely new IPs.

Getting invested in whole new universes with bizarre names creates toughness as a player. Learning about new planets, magic systems, and relationships requires excellent presentation for immersion. RTS games feature cameras far removed from action, making name recognition and relationship tracking feel burdensome.

Existing big IPs solve this problem. Players already know names, environments, and contexts. Combining both elements represents real difficulty.

Content fatigue compounds the problem. Peter has read sci-fi and fantasy books for 30 years. Asking his favourite would take half an hour trying to remember hundreds of titles. Recalling specific details from a 2005 book becomes nearly impossible despite it potentially being a favourite.

Someone writing a new book in a new universe faces disadvantage against familiar authors. Peter would rather read a 16th book from a familiar author than start the first book in a new universe. Content fatigue drives this preference.

Several years ago when Peter started focusing on RTS games, he could wake in the middle of the night and spell out top games, best games, and most inventive games easily. Maybe 10-15-20 titles total. Now when writing scripts, preparing videos, or answering questions, remembering takes time. He follows hundreds of games, maybe a thousand after five years covering the entire genre.

Most content creators focus on one game, its sequels, or its lookalikes. Peter chose the most difficult path covering everything. Sometimes he stops and thinks, “Wait, what’s the name of that game?” People question whether he should know everything. There’s simply too much to keep in memory at this point.

Dawn of War 4: Watershed Moment or One-Off?

Dawn of War 4 exists in a weird space separate from indie titles. It features a globally recognized IP from established publisher Deep Silver through developer King Art Games. Does this represent a watershed moment where bigger publishers return to RTS? Or is it just a one-off flash in the pan? Does RTS remain indie-only space going forward?

Peter keeps a list of RTS games he’s skeptical about. Warhammer: Dawn of War 4 ranks first, alongside Falling Frontier, Total War Warhammer 40K, Game of Thrones, War of Astros, Alliance, Colonizers, and Dino Lords.

Scepticism stems from going back to a game already made and making it better without calling it a remaster or remake. They’re changing story and factions but advertising it as the same game with improvements. New developers create it rather than the original franchise team. They’re hardcore fans based on dev blogs, but it’s still 50/50 whether this creates an amazing experience restarting the franchise or provides reasons for fans to hate it.

Looking at big games generally, they’re going into fourth, fifth, and sixth sequels. New IPs rarely receive major funding or even double-A level funding. Tempest Rising represents the only recent new IP with significant backing. Everything else is indie or third/fourth/fifth sequels of major franchises.

Publishers only invest in proven franchises, not new properties. This limits innovation and fresh ideas in favour of safe established brands.

Falling Frontier’s Troubled Development

Peter loved Falling Frontier when he first saw it six years ago. The developer has changed the game at least three times by his reckoning. Camera angles, mechanics, and fundamental systems have shifted repeatedly. The newest combat gameplay trailer posted recently looks worse than the original from six years ago. Peter sorted videos by oldest and compared them directly.

He’s astounded that Hooded Horse picked up the project roughly three years ago and it still hasn’t shipped. Hooded Horse typically picks up games near the finish line and gets them to release quickly. Instead, they gave this developer three more years, more people, and more money to constantly remake, expand scope, and change direction.

Six hours before this recording, Star Fox Studios of Falling Frontier posted their first YouTube video in two years. The timing coincidentally aligns with this podcast discussion.

Tim notes that iteration is important. If developers discover their game isn’t fun and change it, that could be positive. However, it’s impossible to tell until actually playing the final product. Extended development doesn’t guarantee quality.

Total War Warhammer 40K Speculation

Total War Warhammer 40K’s trailer showed 15 seconds that Peter suspects was a vertical slice rather than actual gameplay. It doesn’t appear they had the full game. They created what they think the game should look like as a proof of concept.

Medieval 3 footage from recent developer blogs looks alpha or pre-alpha. The Warhammer 40K trailer looked beta or near release. This disparity suggests the 40K footage was a vertical slice rather than representative of actual development state.

Peter still hasn’t answered Al’s core question directly about whether Dawn of War 4 indicates bigger publishers returning to RTS or remains a one-off. His observation is that third, fourth, and fifth sequels of big franchises receive funding. Nobody except Tempest Rising represents a new IP with major funding.

Everything else is indie or sequel-based. Publishers only invest in proven franchises with huge existing fan bases. When Peter’s kid grows up, he’ll probably play Age of Empires 14 or something similar. The franchise will continue indefinitely regardless of innovation.

Command and Conquer Generals 2 and EA’s Betrayal of the Genre

Peter started his content creator journey in 2011 when Command and Conquer Generals 2 was announced. Two years later in 2013, EA cancelled it, effectively ending the franchise. Nothing came after except the remastered collection and a mobile game.

EA released the full source code for Generals 2. A whole community driven effort now works to remake portions using patches and modifications. Peter sees this as zombification. The project started as a monetization vehicle. Publishers saw overwhelming negativity from testers and shut it down. EA concluded RTS players don’t like being monetized and can’t generate extra revenue beyond initial purchase.

They put it in the bin and left it there. The remastered collection represented a cash grab, finding a few people to make it. It’s great for new generations. Peter waits for his son to be old enough to play and experience excellent gameplay and storytelling.

The company holding the IP is one of the sorriest… Peter trails off, noting he’s not allowed to call EA what he wants to call them. Al interjects that he can say whatever he likes with no restrictions. Sentiment about EA’s treatment of the franchise runs through everything Critical Moves does.

When Generals 2 started, it featured geopolitical thriller storylines, branching campaigns, and ambitious design. Two years later, EA decided to monetize it as free-to-play selling campaigns separately. This killed the project and by extension killed the entire franchise.

Peter finds the zombification sad. The audience needs to let go. By sticking to 30-40 year old games and zombifying remnants of dead projects, they’re not supporting developers who could make the next amazing game. If audiences let go and embraced new games, talented developers could get funding, sell their games, and produce new titles that could eventually be better than Command and Conquer.

He’ll be crucified for saying this, but new games could surpass the classics if given proper support.

Are Developers as Stuck in the Past as the Audience?

The audience isn’t letting go, but developers aren’t letting go either. Tempest Rising drew criticism from Ben Angel who said it could just have been Command and Conquer 5. Are developers and publishers willing to move on, not just audiences?

Peter confirms they are not. Age of Empires 4 exists and Age of Empires 5 will come. Age of Empires 4 is not very fun. Huge franchises keep getting sequels because they’re familiar with massive fan bases. When Peter’s kid grows up, he’ll play Age of Empires 14. This is guaranteed.

The cycle continues indefinitely with familiar franchises receiving funding regardless of innovation necessity.

What Developers Should Be Building More Of

Tim asks what developers should focus on more. What trends, mechanics, or components should they emphasize?

Co-op gameplay: People are used to co-op from other games. Social media encourages playing with friends and sharing successes. This aligns with modern gaming habits.

Social integration within games: Add chat obviously, but go beyond old-school communication. Create fake social media inside games where players can keep connections. People currently turn on Discord on one screen and have games on another. Games sit on loading screens while players talk to friends. Why not combine these? Have them talking inside the game. Maybe they’ll start playing and have casual fun. That’s fine, but include challenges.

Challenge systems: New developers include challenges allowing players to post best scores on social media. Players brag to friends about achievements. Friends try to beat those scores. This creates interaction loops.

Modern interaction patterns: Before internet, developers created huge campaigns and storytelling experiences consumed individually. Players might write after-action reports on forums later. Younger generations don’t know what after-action reports are. Modern gaming works online and live. Players talk directly to friends while playing, not afterwards.

This represents a huge shift developers must understand.

Meaningful progression: Include levelling systems. Not loot necessarily, but meaningful progression mechanics.

Extensive customization: Customize characters, UI, base aesthetics, and component selection. Customization is critically important. Builder games succeed massively on Steam because people like building and creating.

Sandbox modes: Base building RTS games should include pure building modes. Let players build infinitely, then spawn enemies to test base effectiveness. This creates modability and new game modes, letting player imagination roam. This is how Dota got created. This is how Tower Defence emerged. This is how next subgenres will be born.

Dustfront, Ashes of the Singularity 2, and Sanctuary: Shattered Sun

Dustfront: The developer has a unique vision. He’s Russian, which creates problems for selling the game. Card processors don’t work in Russia anymore due to world events. Peter stays away from politics on his channel because he gets viewers, developers, and gamers from all over the world. Conflicts always exist between countries. He doesn’t want those sparks in videos, comments, or between audience members.

If the developer solves the publishing and payment processing issue, he can publish successfully. It will likely be a big hit with the single player crowd.

Ashes of the Singularity 2: Peter was invited in October to Stardock’s October Fest with other content creators. He saw it before beta in alpha state. After playing half an hour with Winter Gaming in multiplayer, he felt like a general instead of a commander.

This mirrors Beyond All Reason’s feeling. You control entire armies rather than a few important units on a battlefield piece. You see the entire battlefield and the whole war.

This paradigm shift matters because people are getting bored of small tactical level gameplay. They also don’t have the APM to control huge wars instead of battles. If a game provides ways to use armies, reduce micro, increase macro, and make players feel like generals controlling huge battlefields while having fun, it could attract large player bases and even draw from other genres.

Sanctuary: Shattered Sun: Chris Taylor endorsed this project. He’s amazed at what they’re doing and sees it as a spiritual successor to Supreme Commander 1, not 2. The game has serious potential.

Peter fears insufficient audience size. The audience for this game type is already spread between Supreme Commander (FAF – community run), Beyond All Reason (Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander players migrated despite games not being identical), ZeroK, and other similar titles.

Will this game pick everyone up and become the new flagship for this subgenre? Peter fears players might stick to already familiar games. Growth becomes difficult, especially since they’re starting multiplayer-only without campaign or storytelling. AI is currently being worked on for testing, not as a real feature.

The huge game has great potential, but audience fragmentation might prevent it from achieving deserved success.

If Peter had one message for Sanctuary: Shattered Sun developers, it would be: Find investors and publishers who can pay for an amazing single player experience. Then do everything desired with multiplayer once the player base exists.

Stardock’s Partnership Program for Indie Developers

Peter visited Stardock and their CEO decided to create a partnership with indie developers. They’ll pick three games per year to help publish, market, and handle social media. This takes some hats off indie developers’ heads, letting them focus purely on development.

Many developers should visit their website, check offerings, and submit pitches to see if they get selected. It’s a huge opportunity. Stardock isn’t AAA but they’re a huge studio in the double-A industry. They can really help developers market titles, finish development, push games on Steam, and build starting audiences that spread the word organically.

This represents significant support infrastructure for indie RTS developers previously lacking access to professional publishing resources.

Contact & Links

About | Contact | Meet the Team | Get Involved | Forum | Episodes
Discord | Reddit | Twitter / X | Facebook
Instagram | Twitch | Steam Group | Steam Curator
YouTube | Spotify | Apple | Amazon
Email: [email protected]

Episode Verdict

This episode provides brutally honest assessment of RTS gaming’s future through Peter’s decade of genre coverage. Money remains the fundamental constraint preventing genre revival despite robust indie development pipelines. Publishers and investors don’t trust RTS profitability compared to other genres, creating funding scarcity that forces solo developers into decade-long development cycles wearing 10-15 hats simultaneously. The resulting audience fatigue as titles take five years with minimal updates creates vicious cycles where long development times reduce audience enthusiasm, which reduces funding prospects, which extends development times further.

Peter’s list of 12-14 upcoming titles spanning 2026-2028 and beyond demonstrates genuine optimism despite these challenges. Global Configuration, Dustfront, Zero Space, Ashes of the Singularity 2, Sanctuary: Shattered Sun, and others represent diverse approaches from Supreme Commander spiritual successors to crazy experimental designs featuring donut-shaped planets and combined FPS-RTS gameplay. The genre isn’t dead. Development is happening. Releases will eventually arrive.

The single player versus multiplayer tension reveals fundamental economic contradictions. Peter’s audience polls consistently show 76% prefer single player campaigns matching decade-old research indicating 80% of RTS players are casual single player gamers. Despite overwhelming preference, single player costs significantly more to develop requiring voice actors, writers, cinematics, and production crews only profitable with large audiences. Multiplayer finds monetization paths and attracts younger free-to-play audiences despite older players having more disposable income for $60 single player experiences.

Great storytelling creates lasting cultural impact exceeding mechanical excellence. Players remember Arthas killing his father in Warcraft 3’s throne room decades later. Red Alert and Command and Conquer characters remain iconic. Story-driven campaigns function as art forms more difficult to execute than competitive balance. Self-delusion about storytelling ability happens easily, with developers creating uninteresting stories without realizing it.

Dawn of War 4 represents ambiguous watershed potential. Recognized IP and established publisher suggest mainstream RTS return, but developer changes, returning to old designs rather than creating new content, and suspected vertical slice marketing create scepticism. Big games receive funding only as third/fourth/fifth sequels. Tempest Rising stands alone as a new IP with major backing. Publishers invest exclusively in proven franchises.

Command and Conquer Generals 2’s 2013 cancellation after EA pivoted from geopolitical thriller to free-to-play monetization remains a painful betrayal. Community zombification efforts using released source code can’t replace proper franchise continuation. Peter’s controversial take that audiences must let go of 30-40 year old franchises to support new developers who could eventually surpass classics hits hard but rings true.

Cross-genre experimentation and rapid prototyping through custom map editors represent the path forward. MOBA emerged from Warcraft 3 custom maps. Auto battlers emerged from Dota 2 custom maps, which themselves came from Warcraft 3. The next RTS subgenre will emerge from player imagination given proper sandbox tools. Developers should build co-op modes, integrate social features directly into games, implement extensive customization, and create sandbox modes letting creativity flourish.

For developers seeking funding, publishers evaluating RTS investments, or players wondering whether the genre has a future, this episode provides essential framework distinguishing realistic optimism from naïve enthusiasm. The genre isn’t dead. It’s transforming into indie-driven innovation while mainstream publishers cling to safe franchise sequels. Whether this transformation produces the one breakthrough hit needed to open funding floodgates remains RTS gaming’s defining question for the next decade.

Next Episode: DLC: The Best, The Worst, and Everything In Between.