NEW Battle Aces RTS is CANCELED!

My personal opinion from what I've seen of this game. I don't understand who it was for... I felt like they made an RTS made for moba-players. But why would a moba players play this when they are already have better options. Why would I as an RTS player play this? They don't have base building or economic management, which is a big draw for a lot of RTS players. From the looks of it it just looked like sc2 without having to build buildings. But again, who does that appeal to? sc2 fans have sc2 and moba fans have a lot of other options. It looked slick though, nice graphics, nice flow. No real story or lore that can draw you in that way though from what I could see.

It sounds like the had a "test" but it was really just for to gage the monetization potential of the game??

As a 30 something year old gamer, I have no problem with micro transactions. Ive played LoL for years and years and have spent plenty on skins. I also like the old school box model. Its not that I hate microtransactions, its that it doesnt make sense for rts games for the most part. The army skins in sc2 are the exception imo. Otherwise, for Battleaces their idea of buying units was pay to win. In Stormgate, buying campaign chapters is stupid, and their ideas for microtransactions like unit accents and fog of war shaders are kinda lame.

Of course you would love microtransactions, new UI, new skins etc. You are a content creator and one of the best AOE4 players, so you'd get all that for free. Meanwhile in real world, we dont want to pay hundreds of dollars for RTS experience, especially if we have kings of the genre (Starcrafts) free to play.

Sad to see, RTS simply cannot grab the attention of the next generation of gamers

They started development without knowing to make money out of it? I dont buy it, something else happened

Battle Aces had the absolute best micro reaction times and pathing it felt godly also, the art style was great

I had been planning to give it a try when I could just download it from Steam, but I guess they have data to compare against other pre-release games, and it was doing badly compared to those.

not unexpected
the unlocking progess was horrible everyone told them and it seems its either "super greedy monetization or cancel" for them

Knew from the begining that BA would fail. It had nothing going for it exept that it was only micro

LETS GO!!! Another FUNKOPOP Toy Story wanna Be RTS in the dirt! Rest in Piss

Great news!

never seen anything interesting in this game.

As a fan of Empire Earth, I'm eagerly awaiting the release of Empire Eternal. It's created by an independent developer. I see a lot of potential in it.

😢 was genuinly looking foreward to this

Sad.

Great response and break down. I am at a loss of words. I would give anything to keep this game alive.

Not surprising, Blizzard used to cancel mediocre games deep into development and that's what they're doing here. Even in short public betas it was too shallow to hold attention; there's no way they could keep a player base spending for the years it would take to justify the development cost.

Honestly I think there just wasn't enough engagement for Tencent management. Hear me out.
Currently FPS games from Tencent and other companies at that level attract literally hundreds of thousands of people.
They funnel some money into RTS game and see the initial reaction. Now from all the other games they gave a certain formula which can tell them what percentage of that initial contact will actually play the game (notice I didn't say "buy the game", because F2P monetisation is also a viable strategy for Tencent).
After seeing the numbers they actually know the result.
Some of you might say FPS is different, can't project numbers into the same formula and get definite results.... But that's where you'd be wrong. FPS gaming is much more saturated market compared to modern RTS scene. If anything you'd get more people onboard in an RTS compared to an FPS game because competition is so much higher in that area......
So yeah, Tencent is all about profits and they saw pretty early there would be not enough to continue. These days only morons at Sony or Ubi can do absolute fckups... Not for long tho

they probably meant returns as in strictly data, ie people's login amounts and durations, playtime, navigating different parts of the menus/ui, return-to-play rates, etc. basically to see if people would keep playing the game after a couple of hours.

Man, this sucks ass. I was really looking forward to the full release. Hate it or love it, they at least had a unique idea. I thought a lot of people could enjoy this game.

bruh just do the call of duty model , come out with one every 1-2 years and sell a new product, use most of the same shit anyway

I'm incredibly disappointed but I respect the integrity of the developers for not using the fan's money to gamble/pay themselves. They should have kept the pre-guardian shield beta live permanently but alas. I hope some of the work can be recycled for a future project.

I was literally waiting for release to give it a try, I rarely play betas anymore.

I don’t wanna shit on the RTS community because I love it and I am part of it…
But we gotta look at our self first and realize that we are the biggest part of the problem why RTS is dying, instead of developing.
Every thing that is new is instantly rejected by the community and gets huge backlash. Instead of trying to keep it alive and supporting it we doom everything that is not like it was “back then in the good ol days”.
We as a community should see that times have changed, gaming industry became way more competitive and so should we adapt, to not die out of good RTS games. This could happen to AOE 4 too and that’s scary. Maybe times will change again, but RTS may not survive if we don’t adapt now and let new things and ideas happen…

We knew this game was a failure. The real ones knew

If you think this is bad just wait and see how much of a failure zero space will be. Just being honest.

Yeah capitalism Kills RTS If one wow
Skin can more Money then SC2 then there you have IT
Only Games that somehow similar and makes Money are Aoe2 with new dls
Or total war series and their many dlcs
In a world of fire Emblem Heros ,
or Clash of clans or C&C Tiberium alliance
You have 0 Chance because ITS Not a cow milking mashine

I love RTS but I still have no idea what is the general appearl of this game other than being E-Sport , mico and skill.... Where's story , destruction , immersion a thing that attract me to RTS in first place.

There seems to be a significant disconnect between the preferences of different RTS fans.

Personally, I enjoy Age of Empires II the most, followed by C&C Generals, then Age of Empires IV, StarCraft II, StarCraft I, and finally Warcraft III.

So I find it hard to understand why so many streamers have spoken almost exclusively positively about Battle Aces, despite the fact that it shared very little in common with those classic titles.

The unit design in Battle Aces—both visually and mechanically—felt extremely limited and generic. There were obvious analogs to Blink Stalkers, Zerglings and Banelings, Siege Tanks, and a handful of air units. But many iconic RTS mechanics were simply absent. There were no invisible or burrowed units, no aircraft like those in C&C Generals, no flamethrower tanks like the Dragon Tank with its sweeping wall of fire. The unit roster felt narrow, and where variety existed, it was mostly derivative of StarCraft II. Visually, many units looked overly similar—and in some cases even resembled cute animals. But do fans who grew up with the gritty, serious tones of C&C, StarCraft, Warcraft, or Age of Empires really want "cute" unit designs?

C&C1 featured a dark, militaristic story where Kane shoots a cameraman during a cutscene. StarCraft and Warcraft weren’t exactly light-hearted either. So it’s hard to imagine there's a large audience looking for a light, cheerful aesthetic in an RTS.

Even more problematic: there were no distinct factions, which are usually critical for helping players identify with the game. Imagine Dota or League of Legends if all heroes were just melee brawlers—no mages, no ranged carries, no assassins. That kind of diversity is essential, and the same applies to RTS games. Factions are often the heart of a game's identity and narrative.

And let’s not forget that, according to surveys from Stormgate, a significant portion of RTS players primarily engage with single-player content—possibly a third or more. Battle Aces didn’t offer any single-player mode. There was also no map editor, no modding support, and no memorable soundtrack. Aside from a decent intro, that was basically it in terms of atmosphere.

The economy system and the base-building was practically nonexistent. Placing a single building at a predetermined spot can’t reasonably be called "base-building," and even if we did count it, it offered nowhere near the freedom and decision-making that RTS fans expect. There were also no meaningful choices about where or how to expand.

All in all, Battle Aces was missing so many core elements that define the RTS genre. That’s why I simply couldn’t understand the early praise. Even if it had launched, I would’ve given it maybe three months before player interest collapsed. As it turns out, it didn’t even last that long, and I believe that’s the right outcome. Given everything it lacked, it seems naive to have believed it could ever succeed as a mainstream RTS.

The player drop-off ultimately proves the point. What puzzles me most is why so many experienced RTS veterans didn’t see this coming. Maybe it was more wishful thinking than a critical assessment of what Battle Aces actually offered—and, more importantly, what it didn’t.

It feels like many people believe that StarCraft II is the best RTS of all time, and that the only way forward is to copy it and make minor improvements. But that’s completely wrong.

The next truly great RTS won’t succeed by simply being a better StarCraft II. It will only succeed if it manages to blend the best elements from StarCraft II, Age of Empires II, C&C Generals, and Warcraft III into a cohesive and fresh experience.

And that means StarCraft II fans will have to let go of more "core features" than they’d like to admit. It’s time to recognize that other RTS titles—like Age of Empires or Generals—bring valuable mechanics and design strengths to the table.

A game that copies one of these titles 80% of the way will never become the most successful RTS. It will only appeal to a fragment of the audience.

We’ll see how many decades it takes before pro players, streamers, and developers finally understand that.

It feels like many people believe that StarCraft II is the best RTS of all time, and that the only way forward is to copy it and make minor improvements. But that’s completely wrong.

The next truly great RTS won’t succeed by simply being a better StarCraft II. It will only succeed if it manages to blend the best elements from StarCraft II, Age of Empires II, C&C Generals, and Warcraft III into a cohesive and fresh experience.

And that means StarCraft II fans will have to let go of more "core features" than they’d like to admit. It’s time to recognize that other RTS titles—like Age of Empires or Generals—bring valuable mechanics and design strengths to the table.

A game that copies one of these titles 80% of the way will never become the most successful RTS. It will only appeal to a fragment of the audience.

We’ll see how many decades it takes before pro players, streamers, and developers finally understand that.

It wasnt released yet how can you judge its monetization for a game thats in beta? If you pay for microtransactions in a game thats not even out yet youre either a top 1% huge enthusiast fan or youre a sucker. I would have spent a lot of money on this game when it came out. I played one of the betas and it was super fun but im not dropping micro money on a game thats not even out. A) you dont know if its even gunna come out or be good when its out (guess people were right to be concerned there) and b) you dont know if what youre spending money on is even going to make it to the final release….were they really judging the games potential based on how much money it was able to make on micros while the game was IN BETA?! Just a new level of greed, god damn. I guess thats tencent for you

I am unsure if Battle Aces couldn't be in a better place if they picked a different setting, e.g., medieval or fantasy. Most of the new RTS games hit the modern or sci-fi themes.

Alright, it seems like if we don’t do it, nobody will. If anyone is interested in working on a new competitive RTS, please DM me. Programmers, designers, developers, and anyone else passionate are more than welcome to join!

I’m a SUCKER for voice packs, etc. if they sold new music, new voice lines, I would drop $$ on it. I also love unique armor, etc

You can continue to monetize RTS games after first sale, I think a great example is AoE2. Releasing campaign packs and new civs seems to work for them. They are hit and miss in terms of quality but some of them are really fun and it keeps the game alive.

Man, Battle Aces looked like it could have been such a great game. I get the sense that the importance of scouting in AoE is actually a bit of a barrier from some folks who appreciate strategy games but don't like having to constantly scout hidden information. Wish I had gotten around to trying it while it was in beta. Hope for all the best for the developers. They were making a really cool game, and they deserve the praise and recognition for it even if the monetization didn't pan out.

I dont think rts games are hard to monetize.

I been saying for years. Sell wild skins and voice packs anything else.

Just make a option to disable skins for yourself for your opponents so you don't run the risk of balance. But people get to enjoy the wild crazy skins

Sad that "RTS-like" game such as BA doesn't get success and exposure to more publishers eyes. From a game perspective, well for a game that was at best a glorified RTS arcade mode experience can't say I am surprised.

Honestly, I'm really sad this happened, Very unfornunate.

I saw this comming. The reason starcraft is almost dead is because its competitive gameplay is hard to master. This game built a game around that... But i really loved the art style and design.

No single player, no base building, no interest from me.
I can respect trying something new. But the game was for a niche within a niche within a niche genre.

Not going to speak for everyone, but still would like share my thoughts.

Blizzard got too comfortable with their WoW cash cows and fumbled really hard their devoted RTS playerbase by doing absolutely nothing at best and actively hurting the RTS franchise games at worst.

I jumped into Starcraft in the middle of 2012, got enamored with its story, then jumped into SC2 WoL, was beyond hyped during Heart of the Swarm launch, been actively playing and watching all the major events.

Even though i was a poor student at the time, i would be eager to support the game i loved in all ways the devs would made possible. I was looking closely, if not with envy, at the league of legends monetization strategy via models and especially Valve's Dota 2 International crowd-funding structure of the prize pool, i would definitely engage in any similar activity to support StarCraft 2. But instead we got a big FU in the face in the form of broken balance:
- 7-gate blink stalker pushes in PvT in 2013-2014
- swarmhost slugfest because of the othewise non-existent zerg late game against protoss and mech terran
- consequent zerg extinction in 2015 from the higher proplay since the devs effectively removed swarmhost from the game and didn't give any tools in return to survive in the late game until the LotV release

And battle chests were added in to the blizzcon finals prize pool several years later when it was already too late. And we are not talking about how the sc2 launch in South Korea was essentially a disaster, they failed to effectively transfer the pro players from SC:BW, Starcraft 2 did not get that level of reception, and 15 years later it's sc:bw that is a blooming game in the most competitive region and not sc2

if your idea of health for this genre is paypigging hardcore for dramatically overpriced, shitty cosmetics then im perfectly okay with RTS dying. $20 is not a fucking microtransaction. its the price of a fucking indie game. games likely far better than whatever dogshit you're paypigging. i just finished running away from FPS and fighting games for this specific reason. the games arent made for those who actually enjoy it, they're made for morons who think they want to play it and are willing to pay stupid amounts of money for dogshit WoW cosmetics or old costumes. i do not, at all in any way, want the current cancer to have representation in this genre. more studios need to have an actual grasp on finances and make budget appropriate games. im fucking done paying for budgets that far exceed the potential return from its audience. to think you made a 20 minute fucking video where you're begging for the lowest effort business model in the only remaining competitive genre without this blight is insane. if games cant just be fucking games anymore because of this, then i'd rather have much less games. RIP FPS, RIP fightan. i pray to god RTS keeps its integrity intact.

I realize that's the direction new rts games are going (i've played about 3 now with this feature) but i just can't get behind choosing your units from a pool before a match, or deckbuilding your rts units. I want all options always available. Nothing sets me off more than knowing there's a perfect counter unit to my opponent's strategy that i didn't choose prior to the match, or had i chosen a different list of units i could have beaten my opponent's list, etc. FOMO is just too effective at psyching me out while i play. And how do you balance that it? there's always going to be a meta of "best unit list" and if any of the best units are locked behind a paywall that's badnews bears, but it sounds like that wasn't the case here, even though it still failed.

I think with AoE 4 Microsoft at least has a decent monetization option with the dlcs. In Sc2 for example that would be a lot different because you cant add paid factions. I dont know of course their numbers. But at least AoE4 has a method to generate sustainable revenue. Other RTS would have a much more difficult time. I think something could help them could something like the dotu plus. I would a small subscription for advanced stats analysis, maybe they could develop an advance ai trainer that could help you train against specific buildorders or just in general advanced stuff that could add value to someone Who plays a lot 1v1 without being pay to win.

The idea of replacing macro/base building by a deck didn't fly. I think it was dumb and did not make the game easier in any way, just more fast paced and one dimensional.