General Why do so many modern RTS games abandon campaigns for multiplayer?

[Al]

We've talked about this on the podcast a few times. It seems like a lot of games are abandoning campaigns and focusing purely on multiplayer despite evidence that the typical RTS gamer wants a campaign first and foremost. I asked the question on Reddit a couple of weeks ago and the results are compelling:

​

78.3% of 1136 responders said that a single player campaign is more important that multiplayers. That's pretty decisive. So why are so many developers focused on making multiplayer over campaign?

 

[quietoffensive]

The reason is very simple. The publishers are chasing the money in esports now. Campaign do not bring flashy tournaments or Twitch hype, so they decided to sideline it. Multiplayer is great, no one is doubting that, but campaigns helps to build loyalty. If devs keep ignoring that, they will keep wondering why numbers keep dropping.

 

[blitzmaster_84]

The reason is very simple. The publishers are chasing the money in esports now. Campaign do not bring flashy tournaments or Twitch hype, so they decided to sideline it. Multiplayer is great, no one is doubting that, but campaigns helps to build loyalty. If devs keep ignoring that, they will keep wondering why numbers keep dropping.

The esports-money argument is very valid. But strategically, ignoring campaign weakens the franchise's durability. That's what they failed to realise. Campaigns are emotional infrastructure. They introduce factions, mechanics, and narrative to the game. Without that, multiplayer becomes a useless competition with no attachment.